Some semantic confusion on my part. Sorry.
I use the word "template" to refer strictly to out-of-language templates like HTML markup prototypes that can be cloned, augmented and populated based on data, or the old string substitution and innerHTML type templates. I have not yet started referring to DSLs as templating systems, but you're right they are.
For me, being new to ClojureScript, all the code pasted below looks just like ClojureScript. If I didn't know about Reagent I would think that ClojureScripts came with HAML/Jade like support built-in.
The Kioo project is interesting but just like your imagined future version of Javascript and just like JSX it does not gel/jell well with the host language. Visually and mentally, it's hard for me to read anything other than the Jade/Reagent style code.
I love Reagent for the simple reason that when I read the stuff below I simply do not get STRESSED out
(defn form [field-wrapper fields]
[:form (map field-wrapper fields)
[:button {:type "submit"}])
(defn wrapper [{:keys [label-text input]}]
[:label
[:span label-text]
input])[form wrapper
[{:label-text "Name", :input [:input {:type "text"}]}
{:label-text "City", :input [:input {:type "text"}]}
{:label-text "Age" , :input [:input {:type "text"}]}]]
It's very pretty and clear from a symbolic/cognitive point of view.
But I have to say I fail to zoom in on the point of the article. What is the argument you're making? If it's that JSX is like Reagent then I strongly disagree, even if they are logically doing the same thing. It's just that when I look I JSX I want to run away and when I look at Reagent I have that pleasant feeling you mentioned. They're a world apart in terms of the intangible feel.