Twitter releases new JS template engine: hogan.js

<p><pre><code> &#60;script src="//goo.gl/OCK7V"&#62;&#60;/script&#62; </code></pre> Really?

I was dubious when Twitter released Bootstrap.css, but i have to say, not being a UI expert i found it quite easy to work with. Concisely documented and the right set of tools that i need, for the most part at least. Some more on typography would have been nice.<p>I have yet to understand how templating engines work, and what advantages they provide, but knowing this comes from twitter piques my interest for the future.

I'm surprised that no JS template engines ever implement binding. It seems like everybody just ports some server-side ideas, even though there's a lot more that is possible client-side. Why do I need to rerender the entire template when my data changes?<p>Sproutcore2 is an example of this, but it's pitched as a full framework rather than a binding aware template engine.

Compiling is nice. Not a big fan of Mustache though, the tags look like Brainfuck to me.

Currently using Underscore, but I would almost switch to Hogan for the name. I am assuming Mr. Hogan's mustache was used for inspiration?

Nice to see Twitter has a sense of humor. "Lovingly crafted by bros" in the footer is a nice touch.

Could someone perhaps help me out re: the difference between Compiling and Rendering JS templates? What it feels like is this:<p>Compiling a JS template on the server gives you a template object that has a render() method. On the client side, you create an instance of the object and pass its render() method a context? Am I missing anything?<p>If anything, this looks like what I've been looking for to get my templates off my page and into a separate JS file. Makes things cleaner. And <i>apparently</i> faster?

My biggest question is: Is rendering faster too?<p>Because rendering is pretty much just string concatenation. So my guess is it's not. Is it?<p>If rendering is not faster then this is no use to me, since I'm a very happy user of haml-coffee (<a href="https://github.com/9elements/haml-coffee" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/9elements/haml-coffee</a>).

Nice to see that the hogan.js site itself is using Skeleton ( <a href="http://getskeleton.com/" rel="nofollow">http://getskeleton.com/</a> ) for its responsive layout. I've been enjoying using it quite a bit.

Resembles handlebars.js. Can someone point out the difference?

This looks just like Dust.js: <a href="http://akdubya.github.com/dustjs/" rel="nofollow">http://akdubya.github.com/dustjs/</a>

So let's recap: This is a new Javascript template engine that uses Mustache syntax and allows you to pre-compile template syntax. Sound's good...<p>But...why didn't they just use Handlebars? Or if you aren't wedded to Mustache syntax, one of the twenty other template engines out there that support pre-compiling?

Looks a lot like jquery tmpl -- the syntax at least

<p><pre><code> npm ERR! 404 'hogan' is not in the npm registry.</code></pre>

Oh sweet. I was just saying to my coworkers that what we REALLY need is another javascript templating engine.

I have yet to see a template engine that has any practical advantages over conventional &#60;%= stuff %&#62; scriptlet style. Moving format logic out of your template into your controller always results an unmaintainable mess.