HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
WebAssembly
proposals
Python2018–2025
WebAssembly / proposals

proposals

Tracking WebAssembly proposals

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
39Distinct people
49Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Tracking WebAssembly proposals

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, 12:54:37 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 year49 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-10-22 17:05:09 UTC to 2025-05-10 00:07:26 UTC.

0369122018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 0 submissions, 9 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 1 submissions, 10 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025

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
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
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 UTC808
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC606
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC909
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC11110
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
WebAssembly proposals Finished Proposals Inactive Proposals Active proposals Proposals follow this process document. Phase 5 - The Feature is Standardized (WG) These proposals have not yet been merged to the spec. Merged proposals are listed in Finished Proposals. Proposal Champion JS Promise Integration Francis McCabe Web Content Security Policy Francis McCabe Phase 4 - Standardize the Feature (WG) Proposal Champion Threads Conrad Watt Compact Import Section Ryan Hunt Wide Arithmetic Alex Crichton and Jamey Sharp Phase 3 - Implementation Phase (CG + WG) Proposal Champion ESM Integration Asumu Takikawa, Ms2ger, and Guy Bedford Stack Switching Francis McCabe and Sam Lindley Custom Page Sizes Nick Fitzgerald Custom Descriptors and JS Interop Thomas Lively Phase 2 - Proposed Spec Text Available (CG + WG) Proposal Champion Relaxed dead code validation Conrad Watt and Ross Tate Numeric Values in WAT Data Segments Ezzat Chamudi Extended Name Section Ben Visness Rounding Variants Kloud Koder Compilation Hints Emanuel Ziegler JS Primitive Builtins Sébastien Doeraene Acquire-Release Atomics Conrad Watt and Rezvan Mahdavi Hezaveh Multibyte Array Access Brendan Dahl FP16 Brendan Dahl Phase 1 - Feature Proposal (CG) Proposal Champion Type Imports Andreas Rossberg Component Model Luke Wagner WebAssembly C and C++ API Andreas Rossberg Flexible Vectors Petr Penzin and Tal Garfinkel Memory control Deepti Gandluri and Ben Visness Reference-Typed Strings Andy Wingo Profiles Andreas Rossberg Shared-Everything Threads Andrew Brown, Conrad Watt, and Thomas Lively Frozen Values Léo Andrès and Pierre Chambart More Array Constructors Nick Fitzgerald JIT Interface Ben Titzer Type Reflection for WebAssembly JavaScript API Ilya Rezvov JS Text Encoding Builtins Daxpedda Phase 0 - Pre-Proposal (CG) Phase 0 proposals are tracked in the design repository issue tracker. Implementation status Implementation status of most proposals in various wasm engines is available on https://webassembly.org/features/ Contributing new proposals Please see Contributing to WebAssembly for the most up-to-date information on contributing proposals to standard.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

49 sources
nenaoki·May 10, 2025
The Wasm Constant Time proposal was just moved to inactive 4 days ago[0]. From what I can tell the bulk of the work for it was done in 2018[1], but it needs updating to consider SIMD, and for legwork to be done on moving it along as a proper spec extension. Until someone picks up this valuable work and lands this much-needed feature in Wasm, we're extremely vulnerable to timing attacks in all Wasm crypto. [0] https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals/blob/9fc7a85e/inact... [1] https://github.com/PLSysSec/ct-wasm
In WASM 2.0
meheleventyone·Jan 16, 2025
People can use software written in languages that need a compile target. For example you can write web applications that use libraries written in C/C++ that before would have needed to be hand ported to JS or compiled using technology like asmjs that was creaking at the seams. From the user perspective it enables more rich web applications. From a performance perspective it's also a different target for web engines so has different opportunities for optimization. It's not clear to me we've reached the limit on that at the moment, or how much work browser developers are putting in to optimizing their WASM codepaths. The standard also includes support for things like SIMD which is not natively available in JS land which should provice a boost for suitable workloads and there is a lot coming through the proposal pipeline (https://github.com/
Read the rest
WebAssembly/proposals) that will also let WASM diverge more from JS. From a developer perspective allowing more languages than JS also has some productivity benefits. Both in using languages they are more familiar with and those better suited to certain domains. For example you can write math code in JS, in particular making use of TypedArrays to help things along but its much more straightforward in a language that supports more 'native' types.
In Is WebAssembly Memory64 worth using?
nullifidian·Sep 26, 2023
Do you know anything about any WASM developments that will enable pure WASM interaction with the browser's Web-APIs at no or at a low cost without the JS layer? Sometimes I look at https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals and it's very confusing. There are the type imports proposal(years away), the almost complete GC proposal(which is apparently only for GCd languages, but not for anything browser<->wasm), the component model(which looks and sounds as something not for the browser use case), JS String Builtins (which will provide faster JS strings, but not DOM) and ECMAScript module integration (which will turn WASM modules into ES modules, but Web-APIs aren't ES modules so no luck). Sometimes I read contributor interactions and it looks as if providing such functionality isn't their priority or even in their plans, and for the majority t
Read the rest
he WASI + component model for the cloud, crypto and similar use cases are more important.
In Show HN: Unity like game editor running in pure WASM
josephg·Mar 21, 2023
> This comment repeats a fundamental error and misunderstanding Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be vigorously agreeing with me about performance: I said that implementing a GC inside WASM right now is possible (eg Blazor, wasmer-go) but slower and bigger than if a GC was built into the wasm virtual machine. You said: > WASM is (currently) not able to be a compilation target for an efficient GC implementation. It lacks features needed to be able to implement GCs reasonably, like memory barriers. So 1. is out of scope if you don't want a bloated super slow language runtime running on top of WASM (like e.g. Blazor). ... Which reads me like, "its possible (eg blazor) but doing it the current way makes it bloated and super slow". I agree! > Also 2. is not happening, even it was discussed also since many years. As another commenter pointed out
Read the rest
, wasm-GC is in the implementation phase. Its already supported in Firefox and Chrome, though in both cases behind a feature flag. https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals > It lacks features [...] like memory barriers. ... WASM was never meant to by concurrency to JS in the browser! What does concurrency have to do with any of this?
In A world to win: WebAssembly for the rest of us

Showing the 15 most recent of 49 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

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.