HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
elm
compiler
Haskell2012–2026
elm / compiler

compiler

Compiler for Elm, a functional language for reliable webapps.

Languages & Compilers
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
48Distinct people
60Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
7.9KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Compiler for Elm, a functional language for reliable webapps.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

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

  • elm/core · linked in 2 of the same discussions

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

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:59:53 AM 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 year60 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-05-03 21:15:25 UTC to 2026-08-25 11:45:26 UTC.

0510152012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20122013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 1 submissions, 7 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 2 submissions, 6 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 1 submissions, 4 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 1 submissions, 14 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

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
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC817
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC826
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC606
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC514
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15114
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211

What Hacker News says

2 sources
zachrose·Sep 11, 2017
The latest thought on this from the Elm community is that dead code elimination should be done after compilation[1] and that this should be easy[2]. I don't think the OP's main point was about file size optimization though. Elm's killer "optimization" is to remove the mutable parts of JavaScript and add a strong type system that can prevent practically all runtime errors. To achieve that goal the source language is significantly different than the target language. [1]https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/1453#issueco... [2] https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-make/issues/91#issuecomment-...
In Web frameworks are transforming from runtime libraries into optimizing compilers
rtfeldman·Aug 2, 2017
> It would appear that you misunderstood what I said. Could be. The point of the paragraph after this seems to be self-evident (if an abstraction is unavailable, then you use a lower-level alternative). If that was what you meant, then I agree...and I don't think I needed to have read SICP to know that. ;) > This was because the community leaders/ members were often quick to dismiss any suggestions/ complaints offered instead of patiently exploring them. I would describe this particular issue as having been "patiently explored to death." Here are several links demonstrating this: [0] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/oyrODCgYmQI/T2I_... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYk8CKH7OhE [2] https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/1039 [3] http://faq.elm-community.org/#does-elm-have-ad-hoc-polymorph... > Elm not facilitating
Read the rest
the use of sufficient level of abstractions [...] I had never got the impression that the Elm community was going to fix those problems any time soon. [...] Indeed your characterizing of this thread as talking about some `spooky "abstraction wall"` is a testament to that. This quote characterizes Elm as not having "sufficient level of abstractions" and that these are "problems" that are not being "fixed." My reference to the "abstraction wall" is also a direct quote from a previous comment. [4] All of these quotes frame personal preference as objective fact. It's like saying Java is "broken" because it does not support manual memory management, which no one seems "interested in fixing" by adding `malloc()` and `free()` to the language. Plenty of people would (rightly!) be upset if Java introduced `malloc()` and `free()`, thus breaking the invariant that everything is garbage collected. Likewise, there are many happy Elm users, myself included, who think Elm would be substantially worse if it moved toward the abstractions that PureScript embraces. The fact that Elm doesn't is a benefit from our perspective, even if it's a drawback from yours. Neither of us have "wrong" preferences. There's no universally correct answer here. We can both go about building Web applications in our languages of choice. This distinction may not matter to you, but to someone wondering whether Elm is worth looking into, there's a big difference between "I am inevitably going to hit a wall" (which is not true) and "not everyone agrees with Elm's design decisions" (which is of course true). [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877406
In State of Elm 2017 Results

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.