PRprivong·Dec 16, 2025
To save folks a search:
github repo: https://github.com/lexi-lambda/hackett
Documentation: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/
In Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]lexi-lambda
hackett
Racket2017–2025
lexi-lambda / hackett
hackett
WIP implementation of a Haskell-like Lisp in Racket
20Distinct people
23Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
1.2KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
WIP implementation of a Haskell-like Lisp in Racket
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
> I'm hoping one day someone will make a statically, strongly typed Lisp that still doesn't sacrifice its flexibility and expressive power. I'd jump to that in an instant. This…
reirob used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:56:55 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 year23 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2017-04-22 14:27:54 UTC to 2025-12-16 21:43:16 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 6 | 1 | 5 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
What Hacker News says
2 sourcesAs far as your first question is concerned, macros in and of themselves are not incompatible with a typed language. Coalton uses Lisp macros, for example, and they work seamlessly and as expected.
But a Coalton macro is typically written in Lisp, not Coalton. This isn't in and of itself a problem---it's very easy and straightforward thus to write Common Lisp-style macros in Coalton. The difficulties arise when the macro must itself be (1) written in a statically typed manner, which gets into having a complete typing on your metalanguage (or your AST), and (2) allowed to access the type environment of the surrounding context in which the expansion is happening. If (2) should be accomplished, then the type-checking machinery must collaborate with the macro-expansion machinery, and that in practice makes both tasks very difficult to specify
Read the rest
semantics for and implement.
The language Hackett [1] worked toward solving the problem of having true typed and type-aware macros (they call them "type-aware" and "type-directed" macros [2]). Development unfortunately ceased ~7 years ago.
[1] https://github.com/lexi-lambda/hackett
[2] I think this video has a good discussion of Lisp, macros, and static types, from the perspective of implementing a Haskell in Racket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QQdI3P7MdY