EJS vs Pug

Overview

Pug

Stacks1.3K

Followers1.2K

Votes467

EJS

Stacks522

Followers359

Votes18

GitHub Stars8.0K

Forks859

EJS vs Pug: What are the differences?

EJS (Embedded JavaScript) and Pug (formerly known as Jade) are both popular templating engines used in web development. Although they serve a similar purpose, there are several key differences between the two.

Syntax: One fundamental difference between EJS and Pug is their syntax. EJS uses a familiar HTML-like syntax, allowing developers to directly embed JavaScript code within the HTML markup. On the other hand, Pug uses a unique indentation-based syntax, relying on whitespace and indentation to define the structure of the code.
Code Readability: Due to its HTML-like syntax, EJS tends to be more readable for developers who are already familiar with HTML. Pug, on the other hand, can be more concise and compact due to its indentation-based syntax, but it may take some time for developers to get used to this unique syntax.
Tag and Attribute Syntax: EJS uses the standard HTML tag and attribute syntax, where tags are enclosed in angle brackets and attributes are specified using double quotes or single quotes. In contrast, Pug uses a simplified syntax for tags and attributes. Tags are specified by indentation, and attributes can be written in a shorthand format without the need for quotes or angle brackets.
Whitespace Handling: Another significant difference lies in how EJS and Pug handle whitespace. EJS preserves all the whitespace and indentation in the HTML markup, while Pug automatically removes unnecessary whitespace, resulting in a more compact HTML output.
Code Reusability: EJS allows developers to reuse HTML components easily due to its HTML-like syntax. By keeping the markup separate from the JavaScript, it becomes easier to reuse and maintain code. Pug, with its indentation-based syntax, also promotes code reusability by allowing developers to create reusable mixins and include them in multiple templates.
Error Handling: EJS provides detailed error messages that can help developers identify and fix issues in their code. It displays the line number and error message, making it easier to troubleshoot. Pug, on the other hand, can be less forgiving when it comes to syntax errors, as it requires strict adherence to its indentation-based syntax.

In summary, EJS offers familiar HTML-like syntax and detailed error handling, making it easier to learn and debug, but results in larger files. Pug, with its unique indentation and reusable mixins, leads to cleaner, more concise code, but requires a steeper learning curve and less forgiving error messages.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Pug	EJS
This project was formerly known as "Jade." Pug is a high performance template engine heavily influenced by Haml and implemented with JavaScript for Node.js and browsers.	It is a simple templating language that lets you generate HTML markup with plain JavaScript. No religiousness about how to organize things. No reinvention of iteration and control-flow. It's just plain JavaScript.
-	Template caching and partials;Intelligent error handling with line numbers
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 8.0K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 859
Stacks 1.3K	Stacks 522
Followers 1.2K	Followers 359
Votes 467	Votes 18
Pros & Cons
Pros 138 Elegant html 90 Great with nodejs 59 Open source 59 Very short syntax 54 Structured with indentation	Pros 6 For a beginner it's just plain javascript code 6 It'a easy to understand the concept behind it 3 You almost know how to use it from start 3 Quick for templating UI project
Integrations
Node.js	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Pug, EJS?

TypeScript

TypeScript is a language for application-scale JavaScript development. It's a typed superset of JavaScript that compiles to plain JavaScript.

Handlebars.js

Handlebars.js is an extension to the Mustache templating language created by Chris Wanstrath. Handlebars.js and Mustache are both logicless templating languages that keep the view and the code separated like we all know they should be.

Mustache

Mustache is a logic-less template syntax. It can be used for HTML, config files, source code - anything. It works by expanding tags in a template using values provided in a hash or object. We call it "logic-less" because there are no if statements, else clauses, or for loops. Instead there are only tags. Some tags are replaced with a value, some nothing, and others a series of values.

Slim Lang

Slim is a template language whose goal is to reduce the view syntax to the essential parts without becoming cryptic. It started as an exercise to see how much could be removed from a standard html template (<, >, closing tags, etc...). As more people took an interest in Slim, the functionality grew and so did the flexibility of the syntax.

RactiveJS

Ractive was originally created at theguardian.com to produce news applications. Ractive takes your Mustache templates and transforms them into a lightweight representation of the DOM – then when your data changes, it intelligently updates the real DOM.

Jinja

It is a full featured template engine for Python. It has full unicode support, an optional integrated sandboxed execution environment, widely used and BSD licensed.

Twig

It is a modern template engine for PHP. It is flexible, fast, and secure. Its syntax originates from Jinja and Django templates.

Nunjucks

Rich Powerful language with block inheritance, autoescaping, macros, asynchronous control, and more. Heavily inspired by jinja2. It supports all modern browsers.

Hogan.js

Hogan.js is a 3.4k JS templating engine developed at Twitter. Use it as a part of your asset packager to compile templates ahead of time or include it in your browser to handle dynamic templates.

Jsonnet

It is a data templating language for app and tool developers. It is a powerful DSL for elegant description of JSON data.

Related Comparisons

EJS vs Pug: What are the differences?

Syntax: One fundamental difference between EJS and Pug is their syntax. EJS uses a familiar HTML-like syntax, allowing developers to directly embed JavaScript code within the HTML markup. On the other hand, Pug uses a unique indentation-based syntax, relying on whitespace and indentation to define the structure of the code.
Code Readability: Due to its HTML-like syntax, EJS tends to be more readable for developers who are already familiar with HTML. Pug, on the other hand, can be more concise and compact due to its indentation-based syntax, but it may take some time for developers to get used to this unique syntax.
Tag and Attribute Syntax: EJS uses the standard HTML tag and attribute syntax, where tags are enclosed in angle brackets and attributes are specified using double quotes or single quotes. In contrast, Pug uses a simplified syntax for tags and attributes. Tags are specified by indentation, and attributes can be written in a shorthand format without the need for quotes or angle brackets.
Whitespace Handling: Another significant difference lies in how EJS and Pug handle whitespace. EJS preserves all the whitespace and indentation in the HTML markup, while Pug automatically removes unnecessary whitespace, resulting in a more compact HTML output.
Code Reusability: EJS allows developers to reuse HTML components easily due to its HTML-like syntax. By keeping the markup separate from the JavaScript, it becomes easier to reuse and maintain code. Pug, with its indentation-based syntax, also promotes code reusability by allowing developers to create reusable mixins and include them in multiple templates.
Error Handling: EJS provides detailed error messages that can help developers identify and fix issues in their code. It displays the line number and error message, making it easier to troubleshoot. Pug, on the other hand, can be less forgiving when it comes to syntax errors, as it requires strict adherence to its indentation-based syntax.

EJS vs Pug

Overview