[codexon]

I am fairly certain that Ractive templates are similar to JSX in terms of overhead.

If you don't like compiling JSX you can run it with the JSX client compiler at the cost of compiling it on every client.

Ractive templates are parsed in JS just like JSX, which is why you have ractive compilers like this

https://github.com/ractivejs/rv

[untog]

I think the difference the OP mentioned is that Ractive templates are mustache-formatted strings, and can be stored in external files. So you have a JS file and a template file, not the combination of both you find in React.

[serve_yay]

Yes, indeed. I actually tried for a bit to get React templates in their own files separate from the JS, and I just couldn't do it. I know the React team's reasoning for why it's this way, but I still think it should be something devs can do if they want.

[codexon]

I don't think 16bytes said anything about any of that. React also uses mustache syntax.