EJS (Embedded JavaScript) is a simple templating language that lets you generate HTML markup with plain JavaScript. It allows you to embed JavaScript code within your HTML templates, making it easy to create dynamic content. EJS supports features like loops, conditionals, and includes, enabling you to build reusable components and render data dynamically.
Mustache is a logic-less template syntax that can be used for HTML, config files, source code, or any other text-based format. It is easy to read and write, making it a popular choice for generating dynamic content in web applications. Mustache templates are simple and intuitive, focusing on the separation of concerns between data and presentation.
Both EJS and Mustache are popular npm packages for server-side templating in JavaScript. However, EJS has gained more popularity and has a larger community adoption compared to Mustache.
Syntax
EJS has a template syntax similar to HTML with embedded JavaScript code using <% %> tags. Mustache, on the other hand, follows a simpler and more lightweight syntax with {{ }} tags.
Features
EJS provides more advanced features compared to Mustache. EJS supports complex template logic including conditional statements and loops, partials, and layout support. Mustache, on the other hand, is focused on simplicity and does not include advanced features like complex template logic.
Integration
Both EJS and Mustache can be used with various server-side frameworks and libraries. EJS has better integration with Express.js and provides middleware for seamless integration. Mustache is not tied to any specific framework and can be used with any JavaScript environment.
Extensibility
EJS allows for custom tags, filters, and includes a plugin system, making it more extensible. Mustache, on the other hand, does not have built-in support for custom tags or filters, which limits its extensibility.
Performance
Mustache is generally considered to have better performance compared to EJS due to its simpler syntax and minimalistic approach. However, the performance difference might vary based on the specific use case and template complexity.
