HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
emscripten-core
emscripten
C++2011–2026
emscripten-core / emscripten

emscripten

Emscripten: An LLVM-to-WebAssembly Compiler

123Distinct people
148Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
27.8KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Emscripten: An LLVM-to-WebAssembly Compiler

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

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, 5:04:57 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 year148 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2011-04-16 12:05:53 UTC to 2026-06-13 18:10:02 UTC.

051015202011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 13 mentions; 3 submissions, 10 comments20112012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 20 mentions; 4 submissions, 16 comments2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 21 mentions; 0 submissions, 21 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 13 mentions; 1 submissions, 12 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 16 mentions; 2 submissions, 14 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 1 submissions, 9 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 17 mentions; 1 submissions, 16 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 0 submissions, 9 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 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
20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC13310
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC20416
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC21021
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC13112
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC16214
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1019
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC17116
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC909
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303

What Hacker News says

13 sources
I don't know how to be more clear. I'm not talking about the technical difficulties by themselves, out of context. The technical difficulties are formidable -- but not insuperable for Google with its many engineers. I'm saying that in context of market realities, the other browsers won't use shared Google-source as the "implementation is the specification" for NaCl/Pepper, and no one can write a real NaCl/Pepper spec by which any browser could implement an independent and interoperable workalike in less than decades. So why try if the OSes can do their own non-interoperating workalikes? (And they are already doing this, from what I hear.) If safe native code on the web is mainly for plugins, there's no problem. Plugins are OS-specific today and likely to remain so, safety or no. Moving the Web VM to a more abstract level... hmm, sounds li
Read the rest
ke JS as better compiler target over time. See also https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/.
In Brendan Eich on Ecma TC39, JavaScript.next, and Google Dash
x86 emulation is the wrong solution to this problem because of the difficulty of interop. Compiling to bytecode at least lets you treat JS functions as FFI calls. The first project to do this was Clue in 2008 (http://cluecc.sourceforge.net/), now all the hype is about emscripten (https://github.com/kripken/emscripten) LLVM bytecode to JS compiler. Doing compilation GWT/Clojurescript style is going to reduce integration overhead. So far I haven't seen anything that integrates as well as Parenscript.
In ClojureScript
You really need to look at Coffeescript (http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/) and Emscripten (https://github.com/kripken/emscripten). I use coffeescript for all of my javascript development now and life has never been better. I've never used Emscripten in a serious capacity, but both of these projects are under very active development and show that javascript really is becoming the x86 of the web (as stated by Brendan Eich). No need for us to wait on the four big companies. Things are moving forward without them.
In Google Releases JavaScript.next to JavaScript Compiler Traceur

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.