Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Dust.js vs FLAVE, the Slant community recommends Dust.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript templating engines?” Dust.js is ranked 9th while FLAVE is ranked 26th. The most important reason people chose Dust.js is:
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Filters
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
Pro Cache templates at the client side
Dust.js compiles its templates to plain old javascript, and since javascript files are cacheable, that essentially means your templates can be cached at the client side.
Pro Write once run anywhere
Since Dust's templates are written in JS, there's nothing stopping you from running the same DustJS code both on the client as well as server side (if it supports V8/Rhino JS engine).
Pro Interactive tutorial
Dust.js is quite easy to begin with, thanks to it's powerful interactive tutorial.
Pro Syntax Highlighting
Syntax Highlighting extensions for Atom and VSCODE
Pro JavaScript allowed in views
Pro Helper functions
Can write pure JavaScript helper functions to include in the view file.
Pro Multiple Templates in a single file
Optionally encapsulate views within a class as well as have as many view as you want.
Pro Not white space sensitive
Cons
Con There are no new releases
And apparently Linkedin will not support it more.
Con Not enough community support
Since the number of people currently using Dust.js is quite insignificant as compared to Mustache js and Handlebars, you're less likely to get your question answered or issue resolved if you start using it.
Con Limited support and testing
Con No data binding
Flave only generates HTML.
