Jtwig vs Liquid

Overview

Liquid

Stacks261

Followers126

Votes0

GitHub Stars11.5K

Forks1.5K

Jtwig

Stacks3

Followers6

Votes0

GitHub Stars299

Forks53

Jtwig vs Liquid: What are the differences?

Introduction

Jtwig and Liquid are both popular template languages used for generating dynamic content in web applications. However, they have some key differences in terms of syntax, functionality, and features.

Syntax: One of the major differences between Jtwig and Liquid is their syntax. Jtwig uses a similar syntax to Twig, which is based on the PHP template engine. It employs curly braces and percent signs for control flow and variable rendering. On the other hand, Liquid has a more simplified syntax, inspired by Ruby, with double curly braces for variables and control structures.
Functionality: Jtwig offers a wide range of functionalities, including powerful control statements, filters, and functions. It provides support for features like loops, conditionals, macros, and includes. It also has a rich set of built-in filters and functions for manipulating data. In contrast, Liquid has a more limited set of functionalities and focuses on simplicity. It offers basic control structures like loops and conditionals but lacks some advanced features like macros and includes.
Extensibility: Jtwig provides a more extensible framework for adding custom filters, functions, and tags. It allows developers to create their own extensions and integrate them seamlessly into their templates. Liquid, on the other hand, has a more limited extensibility. While it allows for some customization through custom filters, it does not support custom functions or tags.
Error Handling: Jtwig has robust error handling capabilities. It provides detailed error messages and stack traces, making it easier to debug and troubleshoot template errors. Liquid, on the other hand, has a less comprehensive error handling mechanism. It may provide less detailed error messages, which can make it more challenging to identify and fix template errors.
Compatibility: Jtwig is primarily designed for Java applications and integrates well with Java frameworks like Spring. It can be used with other JVM languages like Groovy and Kotlin as well. On the other hand, Liquid originated from the Ruby community and is commonly used with Ruby-based frameworks like Jekyll and Shopify. It also has implementations in other languages like PHP and JavaScript.
Community and Documentation: Jtwig has an active and growing community of users and contributors. It has comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and examples available, making it easier for developers to learn and use the framework. Liquid also has a sizable community but may have slightly fewer resources compared to Jtwig, especially in terms of documentation and tutorials.

In summary, Jtwig and Liquid differ in terms of syntax, functionality, extensibility, error handling, compatibility, and community support. These differences make them suitable for different use cases and development environments.

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

Advice on Liquid, Jtwig

Asad

Software Engineer at Lisec Automation

Jun 15, 2020

Needs adviceon

.NET

Handlebars.js

@All: I am searching for the best template engine for .NET. I started looking into several template engines, including the Dotliquid, Handlebars.js, Scriban, and Razorlight. I found handlebar a bit difficult to use when using the loops and condition because you need to register for helper first. DotLiquid and Scriban were easy to use and in Razorlight I did not find the example for loops.

Can you please suggest which template engine is best suited for the use of conditional/list and looping and why? Or if anybody could provide me a resource or link where I can compare which is best?

Thanks In Advance

240k views240k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Liquid	Jtwig
It is an open-source template language written in Ruby. It is the backbone of Shopify themes and is used to load dynamic content on storefronts. It is safe, customer facing template language for flexible web apps.	It is a modern template engine for Java. It is not a syntax revolution, it uses familiar language and it is based on code islands, making it easier to read when mixed with content.
Render templates directly from the database;Smarty (PHP) style template engines;Template engine which does HTML just as well as emails;Allow your users to edit the appearance of your application but don't want them to run insecure code on your server	Modular by Principle ;Familiar Syntax ;Highly Configurable ;Fully Tested
Statistics
GitHub Stars 11.5K	GitHub Stars 299
GitHub Forks 1.5K	GitHub Forks 53
Stacks 261	Stacks 3
Followers 126	Followers 6
Votes 0	Votes 0
Integrations
VTEX Zendesk Voog Drip Ruby Jekyll Fedora Locomotive CMS	Gradle Apache Maven Spring Apache Spark Java Apache Struts Grails Apache CXF

What are some alternatives to Liquid, Jtwig?

TypeScript

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

Pug

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.

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.

EJS

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.

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.

Related Comparisons

Jtwig vs Liquid: What are the differences?

Introduction

Jtwig and Liquid are both popular template languages used for generating dynamic content in web applications. However, they have some key differences in terms of syntax, functionality, and features.

Syntax: One of the major differences between Jtwig and Liquid is their syntax. Jtwig uses a similar syntax to Twig, which is based on the PHP template engine. It employs curly braces and percent signs for control flow and variable rendering. On the other hand, Liquid has a more simplified syntax, inspired by Ruby, with double curly braces for variables and control structures.
Functionality: Jtwig offers a wide range of functionalities, including powerful control statements, filters, and functions. It provides support for features like loops, conditionals, macros, and includes. It also has a rich set of built-in filters and functions for manipulating data. In contrast, Liquid has a more limited set of functionalities and focuses on simplicity. It offers basic control structures like loops and conditionals but lacks some advanced features like macros and includes.
Extensibility: Jtwig provides a more extensible framework for adding custom filters, functions, and tags. It allows developers to create their own extensions and integrate them seamlessly into their templates. Liquid, on the other hand, has a more limited extensibility. While it allows for some customization through custom filters, it does not support custom functions or tags.
Error Handling: Jtwig has robust error handling capabilities. It provides detailed error messages and stack traces, making it easier to debug and troubleshoot template errors. Liquid, on the other hand, has a less comprehensive error handling mechanism. It may provide less detailed error messages, which can make it more challenging to identify and fix template errors.
Compatibility: Jtwig is primarily designed for Java applications and integrates well with Java frameworks like Spring. It can be used with other JVM languages like Groovy and Kotlin as well. On the other hand, Liquid originated from the Ruby community and is commonly used with Ruby-based frameworks like Jekyll and Shopify. It also has implementations in other languages like PHP and JavaScript.
Community and Documentation: Jtwig has an active and growing community of users and contributors. It has comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and examples available, making it easier for developers to learn and use the framework. Liquid also has a sizable community but may have slightly fewer resources compared to Jtwig, especially in terms of documentation and tutorials.

Jtwig vs Liquid

Overview

Jtwig vs Liquid: What are the differences?