Overview

Hogan.js

Stacks358

Followers56

Votes3

GitHub Stars5.1K

Forks431

Flow (JS)

Stacks145

Followers75

Votes0

GitHub Stars22.2K

Forks1.9K

Flow Type vs Hogan.js: What are the differences?

Type Checking Mechanism: Flow Type is a static type checker that can catch type errors at compile time, while Hogan.js is a templating engine for creating reusable templates and layouts.
Usage: Flow Type is primarily used to add type annotations to JavaScript code, ensuring type safety, where Hogan.js is used for rendering dynamic content within HTML templates.
Integration: Flow Type requires adding type annotations to JavaScript files, whereas Hogan.js is integrated into HTML files using special tags to define templates.
Execution Environment: Flow Type operates during development to catch errors early, while Hogan.js runs in the browser to render templates dynamically at runtime.
Support for Templating: Hogan.js provides features like partials, inheritance, and data binding for creating complex templates, while Flow Type focuses solely on type checking JavaScript code.
Community and Documentation: Flow Type has a strong community and extensive documentation for developers to leverage its features effectively, while Hogan.js may have a smaller community and fewer resources available for support and guidance.

In Summary, Flow Type is a static type checker for JavaScript code, focusing on type safety during development, while Hogan.js is a templating engine used for rendering dynamic content within HTML templates.

🔥 Trending in Templating Languages & Extensions on StackShare

Sass Templating Languages Extensions

Syntactically Awesome Style Sheets

Try it View Docs Alternatives

Try

88

32.2k

Advice on Hogan.js, Flow (JS)

StackShare

Aug 13, 2019

Needs adviceon

TypeScript

CoffeeScript

JavaScript

From a StackShare community member: "We are looking to rewrite our outdated front-end with TypeScript. Right now we have a mix of CoffeeScript and vanilla JavaScript. I have read that adopting TypeScript can help enforce better code quality, and best practices. I also heard good things about Flow (JS). Which one would you recommend and why?"

405k views405k

Comments

Oleksandr

Senior Software Engineer at joyn

Oct 21, 2019

Decided

Initially making a decision to use Flow vs Typescript we decided to go with flow as we wanted our code to run in a way we wrote it, because when using Flow types are simply removed from the code without modifying the code itself. Sadly, the type system of Flow was in some cases very hard to understand and declare the types correctly, especially in cases when the structure is very dynamic (e.g. object keys and values are created dynamically). Another reason was bad integration with IDE and frequent crashes which made DX very poor. Therefore, we made another evaluation of Typescript and decided to move towards it. As our code base was pretty big when we decided to migrate to TS we couldn't just stop and re-write everything, that's why we started writing new modules in Typescript as well as transforming old components. To make that possible we had to configure Webpack loader to support simultaneous bundling of Flow&JS and Typescript. After around 2 months of the transformation we have around 40% of code being written in Typescript and we are more than happy with integration TS has with IDE, as well as ease of declaring types for dynamic modules and functions.

149k views149k

Comments

Vladyslav

Sr. Directory of Technology at Shelf

Oct 25, 2019

Decided

As our codebase grew in size, we were looking for ways to improve code quality. We chose TypeScript over Flow due to its rapid industry adoption and overall tools support.

We noticed how different open-source projects were migrating from Flow to TypeScript. Most notably, it was Jest, even though Jest and Flow were both developed by Facebook. See this HN thread if you want to dive into an interesting discussion around this move.

Additionally, at the beginning of 2019, both Babel and ESLint enabled seamless TypeScript support, which allowed easy migration path in a backward-compatible way.

155k views155k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Hogan.js	Flow (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.	Flow is a static type checker for Javascript created by Facebook.
-	Type Inference; Easy Integration; Realtime Feedback
Statistics
GitHub Stars 5.1K	GitHub Stars 22.2K
GitHub Forks 431	GitHub Forks 1.9K
Stacks 358	Stacks 145
Followers 56	Followers 75
Votes 3	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 3 Lightweight	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Mustache	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Hogan.js, Flow (JS)?

CoffeeScript

It adds syntactic sugar inspired by Ruby, Python and Haskell in an effort to enhance JavaScript's brevity and readability. Specific additional features include list comprehension and de-structuring assignment.

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.