HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
alexwarth
ometa-js
JavaScript2015–2017
alexwarth / ometa-js

ometa-js

OMeta for JavaScript

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
5Distinct people
7Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
370GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

OMeta for JavaScript

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

  • ohmjs/ohm · linked in 3 of the same discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month7 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-09-10 03:36:37 UTC to 2017-08-15 18:28:50 UTC.

0122015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsAug 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsAug 2017

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20162016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20162016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20162016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20162016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

7 sources
bd82·Aug 15, 2017
Is this what you are referring to? https://github.com/alexwarth/ometa-js Is it still relevant if it has not been updated for several years? Perhaps Ometa's younger's brother (Ohm) should have been referenced instead: https://github.com/harc/ohm Unfortunately while it seems to have some very nice features, particularly the separation of grammar and semantics. Its performance is underwhelming. See a benchmark I've created of JSON parsers implemented using many parsing libraries. http://sap.github.io/chevrotain/performance/ On V8 (Chrome 60) It is the slowest by far, in most cases by two orders of magnitude...
In Writing parsers like it is 2017
e12e·Jun 20, 2016
Apologies for rambling on a bit - but I also have some questions about VPRI. As far as I can gather, it was never the intention to publish the entire system (The whole stack needed to get "Frank" running)? If so, I'd like to know why not? Where you afraid that the prototypes would be taken "too seriously" and draw focus away from the ideas you wanted to explore? The VPRI reports, and before that some of the papers on Croquet (especially the idea of "teatime" which might be described as event-driven, log-based, relative time with eventual data/world-consistency) are fascinating, and I'm grateful for them being published. Also the Ometa-stuff[o] is fascinating (if anything, I think it's gotten too little mind-share). It seems to me, that we've evolved a bit, in the sense that some things that used to be considered programming (display a tex
Read the rest
t string on screen), no longer is (type it into notepad.exe) -- it's considered "using a computer". At the same time some things that were considered somewhat esoteric is becoming mainstream: perhaps most importantly the growing (resurging?) trend that programming really is meta-programming and language creation. ReactJS is a mainstream programming model, that fuses html, css, javascript and a at least one templating language - and in a similar vein we see a great adoption in "transpiled" languages, such as coffee script, typescript, clojurescript and more. HN runs on top of Ark, which is a lisp that's been bent hard in the direction of http/html. I see this as a bit of an evolution from when the most common DSLs people were writing for themselves were ORMs - mapping some host language to SQL. In your time with VPRI - did you find other new patterns or principles for meta-programming and (micro) language design that you think could/should be put to use right now? Other than the web-developers tendency to reinvent m4 at every turn, in order to program html, css and js at a "higher" level, and the before-mentioned ORM-trends -- the only somewhat mainstream system I am aware of that has a good toolkit for building "real" DSLs, is Racket Scheme (Which shows if one contrasts something like Sphinx, which is a fine system, with Racket's scribble[2]). Do you think we'll continue to see a rise of meta-programming and language design as more and more tools become available, and it becomes more and more natural to do "real" parsing rather than ad-hoc munging of plain text? [o] https://github.com/alexwarth/ometa-js [s] https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/getting-started.html http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4017
In Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today
e12e·May 12, 2016
See also Ometa: http://tinlizzie.org/ometa-js/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMeta https://github.com/alexwarth/ometa-js And Cola: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLA_(software_architecture) Some more links on the WP page for VPRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewpoints_Research_Institute And VPRI's own wiki: http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page As far as I've been able to gather, the most immediately useful stuff, is the ideas and concepts in OMeta, as well as the various implementations of OMeta.
In Final “STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming” Paper [pdf]

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.