slim.js VS Mustache.js

Web component browser APIs aren't that many, and not that hard to grasp (if you don't know about them, have a look at Google's Learn HTML section and MDN's Web Components guide); But creating a web component actually requires taking care of many small things. This is where web component libraries come in very handy, freeing us of having to think about some of those things by taking care of them for us. Most of... - Source: dev.to / about 1 year ago

JSX just a templating language in this case, right? No reactivity at all? What's the benefit against using something like https://github.com/janl/mustache.js/ ? Source: 12 months ago

Nonetheless, I made ridiculous simple MRE(minimal reproducible example) for you: Https://codesandbox.io/s/distracted-gauss-gqfiue You might quickly realize the annoyance of html as strings, move to some template then, e.g: https://handlebarsjs.com/guide/ Also this example uses a library for the routing matching. Source: over 1 year ago

Mustache.js is a template engine for creating js templates. Cosmiconfig is a tool to make it convenient to work with the configuration. - Source: dev.to / almost 2 years ago

For a small page like that, they are using Oracle content management, knockoutjs, RedwoodJs, MarkedJs, MustacheJs, JQuery and Bootstrap. There's like 10+ layers or div, header and nav elements just to display the logo. They can't even properly anchor the footer at the bottom... Source: almost 2 years ago

Somebody asked about this before, and the only half-baked solution I found was to use Mustache's partials, which doesn't really do the job. Source: about 2 years ago