Pros of Haml

• More mature and established, with a longer history in the Ruby ecosystem
• Closer to HTML syntax, potentially easier for designers to learn
• Better integration with Ruby on Rails and other Ruby-based frameworks

Cons of Haml

• Less flexible indentation rules compared to Pug
• Limited support outside of Ruby environments
• Slightly more verbose syntax for certain elements

Code Comparison

Haml:

%html
  %head
    %title= page_title
  %body
    %h1.title Welcome to #{@name}'s page

Pug:

html
  head
    title= pageTitle
  body
    h1.title Welcome to #{name}'s page

Both Haml and Pug are templating languages that aim to simplify HTML writing. Haml has its roots in the Ruby ecosystem, while Pug (formerly Jade) is more closely associated with JavaScript and Node.js.

Pug offers more flexibility in indentation and a slightly more concise syntax. It's widely used in Node.js projects and has better support in JavaScript environments. Pug also provides more advanced features like mixins and includes.

Haml, on the other hand, has better integration with Ruby-based projects and may be more intuitive for those familiar with HTML syntax. It's particularly popular in Ruby on Rails applications.

The choice between Haml and Pug often depends on the primary programming language and ecosystem of the project, as well as personal preference for syntax style.

Pros of Handlebars.js

• More familiar syntax for developers coming from HTML backgrounds
• Easier to integrate with existing HTML templates
• Supports precompilation for better runtime performance

Cons of Handlebars.js

• Less expressive and more verbose than Pug
• Limited built-in functionality compared to Pug's feature-rich syntax
• Requires more boilerplate code for complex logic

Code Comparison

Handlebars.js:

<div class="entry">
  <h1>{{title}}</h1>
  {{#if author}}
    <h2>By {{author.name}}</h2>
  {{/if}}
</div>

Pug:

.entry
  h1= title
  if author
    h2 By #{author.name}

The code comparison demonstrates the syntax differences between Handlebars.js and Pug. Handlebars.js maintains an HTML-like structure with curly braces for variables and helpers, while Pug uses a more concise, indentation-based syntax with simplified tags and built-in language constructs.

Handlebars.js is generally easier for developers familiar with HTML, but Pug offers a more powerful and expressive templating language. The choice between the two often depends on project requirements, team preferences, and the complexity of the templates being created.

Pros of Nunjucks

• Syntax closer to HTML, making it easier for designers and those familiar with HTML
• More powerful and flexible inheritance system
• Better integration with existing JavaScript code and ecosystem

Cons of Nunjucks

• Slightly more verbose syntax compared to Pug's concise style
• Less opinionated, which may lead to inconsistencies in large projects
• Slower compilation times for complex templates

Code Comparison

Nunjucks:

<ul>
  {% for item in items %}
    <li>{{ item.name }}</li>
  {% endfor %}
</ul>

Pug:

ul
  each item in items
    li= item.name

Both Nunjucks and Pug are popular templating engines for JavaScript. Nunjucks, developed by Mozilla, offers a syntax closer to traditional HTML, making it more accessible for designers and those familiar with HTML. It also provides a more powerful inheritance system and better integration with existing JavaScript code.

On the other hand, Pug (formerly Jade) offers a more concise and indentation-based syntax, which can lead to cleaner and more readable code for some developers. However, this syntax can be less intuitive for those used to HTML.

The code comparison shows how both engines handle a simple loop to generate a list. Nunjucks uses a syntax closer to traditional templating languages, while Pug's syntax is more minimalistic and relies on indentation.

Ultimately, the choice between Nunjucks and Pug depends on personal preference, team familiarity, and project requirements.

Pros of Liquid

• More widely adopted in e-commerce platforms, especially Shopify
• Easier learning curve for designers and non-programmers
• Better documentation and community support

Cons of Liquid

• Less expressive and feature-rich compared to Pug
• Limited control structures and programming capabilities
• Slower rendering performance for complex templates

Code Comparison

Pug:

doctype html
html(lang="en")
  head
    title= pageTitle
  body
    h1= heading

Liquid:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>{{ page_title }}</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    <h1>{{ heading }}</h1>
  </body>
</html>

Key Differences

• Syntax: Pug uses indentation and minimal syntax, while Liquid uses HTML-like tags
• Variables: Pug uses = for variable output, Liquid uses {{ }}
• Logic: Pug allows inline JavaScript, Liquid has its own simplified logic syntax
• Extensibility: Pug is more extensible with mixins and includes, Liquid has limited extensibility
• Performance: Pug generally offers better performance for complex templates

Use Cases

• Pug: Ideal for Node.js projects, complex web applications, and developers who prefer concise syntax
• Liquid: Best suited for e-commerce platforms, especially Shopify, and projects with non-technical contributors