Jinja2 vs Liquid

Overview

Liquid

Stacks261

Followers126

Votes0

GitHub Stars11.5K

Forks1.5K

Jinja

Stacks2.3K

Followers292

Votes8

GitHub Stars11.2K

Forks1.7K

Jinja2 vs Liquid: What are the differences?

Jinja2 and Liquid are two popular templating languages used for web development. Let's explore the key differences between them.

Syntax: Jinja2 and Liquid have different syntaxes for variable interpolation and control structures. Jinja2 uses double curly braces ({{ }}) for variable interpolation and control structures, while Liquid uses curly braces and percentage signs ({{ }} and {% %}) respectively. This difference in syntax can impact the way templates are written and manipulated.
Filters: Jinja2 provides a wider range of built-in filters compared to Liquid. Filters in Jinja2 allow developers to modify and transform variables in the template. Liquid, on the other hand, has a limited set of filters available. This disparity in filter options can affect the complexity and flexibility of template manipulation.
Whitespace Handling: Jinja2 and Liquid have different approaches to handling whitespace in the templates. Jinja2 preserves whitespace by default, which means that any indentation or line breaks in the template will be maintained. In contrast, Liquid removes leading and trailing whitespace, which can impact the visual formatting of the template.
Template Inheritance: Jinja2 supports template inheritance, allowing developers to create a base template and extend it in other templates. This feature enables code reuse and simplifies the management of large projects. Liquid, however, does not have built-in support for template inheritance, which makes code organization and reuse more challenging.
Error Handling: Jinja2 provides more detailed error messages compared to Liquid, making it easier to identify and troubleshoot issues in the template. Liquid, on the other hand, tends to provide more generic error messages, which can make debugging more time-consuming and difficult.
Compatibility: Jinja2 is primarily used with the Python programming language, whereas Liquid was developed for the Ruby programming language. Although both templating languages can be used with other languages, Jinja2 has better integration with Python frameworks and libraries, while Liquid fits more seamlessly into Ruby-based projects.

In summary, Jinja2 is a powerful and widely used templating engine for Python, offering a flexible and feature-rich syntax for generating dynamic content in web applications. Liquid is another templating language primarily used in Ruby on Rails applications, known for its simplicity and ease of use, particularly in e-commerce contexts.

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, Jinja

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	Jinja
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 full featured template engine for Python. It has full unicode support, an optional integrated sandboxed execution environment, widely used and BSD licensed.
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	Powerful automatic HTML escaping system for cross site scripting prevention; Template inheritance makes it possible to use the same or a similar layout for all templates; High performance with just in time compilation to Python bytecode; Translate your template sources on first load into Python bytecode for best runtime performance; Optional ahead-of-time compilation; Easy to debug; Configurable syntax; Template designer helpers
Statistics
GitHub Stars 11.5K	GitHub Stars 11.2K
GitHub Forks 1.5K	GitHub Forks 1.7K
Stacks 261	Stacks 2.3K
Followers 126	Followers 292
Votes 0	Votes 8
Pros & Cons
No community feedback yet	Pros 8 It is simple to use
Integrations
VTEX Zendesk Voog Drip Ruby Jekyll Fedora Locomotive CMS	Ember.js Git JavaScript Python Node.js

What are some alternatives to Liquid, Jinja?

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.

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.

Hogan.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.

Related Comparisons

Jinja2 vs Liquid: What are the differences?

Jinja2 and Liquid are two popular templating languages used for web development. Let's explore the key differences between them.

Syntax: Jinja2 and Liquid have different syntaxes for variable interpolation and control structures. Jinja2 uses double curly braces ({{ }}) for variable interpolation and control structures, while Liquid uses curly braces and percentage signs ({{ }} and {% %}) respectively. This difference in syntax can impact the way templates are written and manipulated.
Filters: Jinja2 provides a wider range of built-in filters compared to Liquid. Filters in Jinja2 allow developers to modify and transform variables in the template. Liquid, on the other hand, has a limited set of filters available. This disparity in filter options can affect the complexity and flexibility of template manipulation.
Whitespace Handling: Jinja2 and Liquid have different approaches to handling whitespace in the templates. Jinja2 preserves whitespace by default, which means that any indentation or line breaks in the template will be maintained. In contrast, Liquid removes leading and trailing whitespace, which can impact the visual formatting of the template.
Template Inheritance: Jinja2 supports template inheritance, allowing developers to create a base template and extend it in other templates. This feature enables code reuse and simplifies the management of large projects. Liquid, however, does not have built-in support for template inheritance, which makes code organization and reuse more challenging.
Error Handling: Jinja2 provides more detailed error messages compared to Liquid, making it easier to identify and troubleshoot issues in the template. Liquid, on the other hand, tends to provide more generic error messages, which can make debugging more time-consuming and difficult.
Compatibility: Jinja2 is primarily used with the Python programming language, whereas Liquid was developed for the Ruby programming language. Although both templating languages can be used with other languages, Jinja2 has better integration with Python frameworks and libraries, while Liquid fits more seamlessly into Ruby-based projects.

Jinja2 vs Liquid

Overview