HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
soegaard
webracket
WebAssembly2026–2026
soegaard / webracket

webracket

The WebRacket language is a subset of Racket that compiles to WebAssembly

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
127GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The WebRacket language is a subset of Racket that compiles to WebAssembly

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

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, 3:03:16 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 6-hour interval3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2026-01-17 21:23:58 UTC to 2026-01-22 12:59:07 UTC.

0122026-01-17 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsJan 17, 18:002026-01-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-18 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-18 06:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-18 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-18 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-18 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-18 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-19 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-19 06:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-19 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-19 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-19 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-19 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-20 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJan 20, 00:002026-01-20 06:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-20 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-20 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-20 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-20 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-21 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-21 06:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-21 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-21 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-21 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-21 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-22 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-22 06:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-22 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-22 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-22 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsJan 22, 12:00

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
Jan 17, 18:002026-01-17 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-18 00:00:00 UTC110
Jan 18, 00:002026-01-18 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-18 06:00:00 UTC000
Jan 18, 06:002026-01-18 06:00:00 UTC2026-01-18 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 18, 12:002026-01-18 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-18 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 18, 18:002026-01-18 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 19, 00:002026-01-19 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-19 06:00:00 UTC000
Jan 19, 06:002026-01-19 06:00:00 UTC2026-01-19 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 19, 12:002026-01-19 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-19 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 19, 18:002026-01-19 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20, 00:002026-01-20 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-20 06:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20, 06:002026-01-20 06:00:00 UTC2026-01-20 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20, 12:002026-01-20 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-20 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20, 18:002026-01-20 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 21, 00:002026-01-21 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-21 06:00:00 UTC000
Jan 21, 06:002026-01-21 06:00:00 UTC2026-01-21 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 21, 12:002026-01-21 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-21 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 21, 18:002026-01-21 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 22, 00:002026-01-22 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-22 06:00:00 UTC000
Jan 22, 06:002026-01-22 06:00:00 UTC2026-01-22 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 22, 12:002026-01-22 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-22 18:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

3 sources
soegaard·Jan 22, 2026
Yes. I am following the Scheme tradition of representing immediate values as tagged pointers. And (ref i31) is the obvious choice when using WebAssembly. I am happy you and the team added GC to WebAssembly. Details on the representation. https://github.com/soegaard/webracket/blob/main/compiler.rkt... I am more or less only using the linear memory for the JavaScript FFI. FASL-encoded values are passed back and forth to JavaScript.
In The WebRacket language is a subset of Racket that compiles to WebAssembly
soegaard·Jan 22, 2026
I am using a similar representation of immediates as Hoot and wasm_of_ocaml. The representation is explained here: https://github.com/soegaard/webracket/blob/main/compiler.rkt... Internally the compiler uses a series of passes implemented using Nanopass. (generate-code (flatten-begin (closure-conversion (anormalize (categorize-applications (assignment-conversion (α-rename (explicit-case-lambda (explicit-begin (convert-quotations (infer-names (flatten-topbegin (parse (unexpand (topexpand stx))))))))))))))) The code generator is inspired by "Destination-driven Code Generation" by Dybvig, Hieb and Butler. There are some differences however. The code generator in the paper gener
Read the rest
ates "flat" code (assembler) whereas I generate nested Web Assembly instructions. This approach generates reasonable code without having to implement a register allocator. Also, I believe I saw a Wasm to Wasm compiler that improved register allocation (maybe it was a switch for wasm-tools?). If (when?) WebRacket becomes a success, we can always switch out individual passes.
In The WebRacket language is a subset of Racket that compiles to WebAssembly

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.