"That is, it is not generating anything." if you speak about code generation like code behind in VS, it has nothing do with the paradigm. If you speak about underlying technology, it does not matter. In case of declarative languages, the framework determines what the language is capable of. And that's the point of them, they are generalizing the solution for common problems. The browser do a lot of things in the background when it draws a rectangle the same way how SQL server is doing a lot things when you execute a query, but these things have nothing to do with programming paradigm, which can be understood without computers.
Imperative: cooking recipe
Functional: assembly line in a factory
Declarative: your assistant
(compare the real world examples to the things i mentioned)
> SQL is far and away understood as a declarative language for what data you want out of a relational database. I challenge you to find any literature that does not describe it as a declarative language.
Ok, and I challenge you to compare HTML and SQL. Are they the same by nature. Are the steps, the approach of problem solving is the same? Because if SQL is declarative, than it is really similar to HTML
> Now, can we munge definitions and pull in an odd true scotsman argument about it not being a "true declarative" language? I mean, yeah. But, this is like arguing that LISP is not a functional language by some specific modern view of that term. Certainly true, but far from useful. And almost certainly not what anyone you would talk to expects from those terms.
We are speaking about semantics and taxonomy here. These kind of a questions are always debatable, so i can't really say anything about this, because you are speaking of ways of discussion. What i'm saying that my taxonomy makes the most sense to me, and if someone truly can challenge it, it's gonna make my mind change, but "literature mentions it somehow else" is not an argument makes me change my mind.