<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Linguistic Relativity and Programming Languages · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.03916/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.03916/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Linguistic Relativity and Programming Languages — mentioned by Mathnerd314</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45935166</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1808.03916:45935166</guid><pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2025 05:01:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Tell it to the papers: https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~csg63/publications/onward24/onwar... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.03916 As vague analogies go, much more ridiculous and vague things have been published and peer reviewed and even gotten significant citations. Like ecological niches and invasive species, DNA as genetic blueprints, selfish genes, ... About all that can be said about these is that they are closer to the truth than what came before, and that if you actually learn the field then you can appreciate how they kind of get it right.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.03916/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
