Is there a jade template engine for ASP.NET MVC?

Question

I've always been searching for a best suitable ViewEngine for me in ASP.NET MVC, and after observing a ton of template engines in either JAVA, PHP, Python, Ruby, NodeJS... I found the jade template and loved it since it has some really nice features:

1. Encode all html by default, just like razor, it's a nice addition to security and convinence
2. Structure by indent, so get rid of the tag hell, after writing HTML for years, I hate all those < and >!
3. Clear logic code, by preceding if/else/for by a single line "-" it minimize the code for choice and loop.
4. Whitespace strip, jade outputs "compressed" html which do not have extra whitespace between tags or texts

I have also observed many ViewEnginge for ASP.NET MVC, some are quite close to jade, but still with defects:

• NHaml structures the HTML by indent, but donot encode html by default, and the tag prefix % are really annoying
• Razor may be the only ViewEngine which encodes html by default, but it's still a little heavy for me since razor's basic markup is still html tags, and also razor could not strip extra whitespace for me

so I wounder if there is a ViewEngine closer to jade, ot is there an port of jade to .NET?

Thanks

Solution 1

It's not as clean as Jade, but you won't have to write 'real' HTML, with WingBeats.

Solution 2

The Spark View Engine supports parsing Jade templates as of v1.7 (4/12).

Read More: http://sparkviewengine.codeplex.com/releases/view/86901

Install via NuGet package:

Install-Package Spark.Web.Mvc3

or

Install-Package Spark.Web.Mvc2

Read More: http://nuget.org/packages/Spark.Web.Mvc3

Comments

[otakustay]

Thanks, it seems acceptable to have a new DSL, it's quite clean so I would have a try :)

[Vartan Arabyan]

How do you make spark recognize *.shade files? with the latest version it still looks for spark not shade

[Chev]

Why is this not a bigger deal!? This is awesome!

[Chev]

Maybe it's just me but that is hideous syntax.

[Christopher Currie]

While it's a good start, it's support is minimal and has some syntax incompatibilities with original Jade. In particular it doesn't seem to support doctypes or attributes.

[airtonix]

@AlexFord it's not just you. it's hideous.