EDIT: It's a very common logical confusion. Just because someone says "HTML is bad because it's not a programming language" but you think HTML is good doesn't mean that HTML is a programming language. The first person could just be wrong about there being a connection between badness and not being a programming language. It's a shame the entire article is written based on this error
For SQL you are not instructing the computer what to do, you're describing the rules and structure of the result that you want in some coded language such that an execution engine can determine how to deliver the expected result.
For HTML you're not instructing the renderer what to do, you're describing the rules and structure of the result that you want in some coded language such that the rendering engine can determine how to deliver the expected result.
If I'm wrong, I would be very happy to be corrected because I've argued this for a long time with people who don't know what a programming language paradigm is - so I'd like to know if I'm mistaken.
Or as another HN person pointed out, the root issue is the author being unhappy that "not" being a programming language conveys negative attitude.
If we're looking for what to call HTML, why not just say markup language? It's a well known industry term.
This is the core reason why HTML isn't considered a programming language. It's not designed to be Turing-complete which is a key aspect of programming languages.
That being said, HTML+CSS is unintentionally Turing-complete: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-co...
This looks to me the equivalent of: "software engineer is a real engineering discipline" argument. Some practitioners of one field consider themselves to be equivalent to another related field because of similarities. Opponents cite some "key differences" and requirements to deny the claim. Fights ensue.
Another similarity is that in both cases there is an implied value judgement—both sides of both arguments see one side of the dividing line as being "better" somehow than the other side, and want to either be included or to defend the integrity of the "better" side.
Ah yes, journalist word salad.
No, HTML is not a programming language. We all know this. The definition of programming is: "creating a sequence of instructions to enable the computer to do something" - which HTML does not do. Defining HTML as a programming language is like defining a plain .txt file as a programming language. You can open it in your browser, the computer is "running" it, but it's not doing anything. The underlying rendering engine of HTML is what's doing the work rendering your markup.
I suspect this is the author trying to quell his cognitive dissonance at not knowing how to write code for actual programming languages. Perhaps it's his ego invoking that fear... "I don't know something I want to know, so I must rationalize something I do know as being more than it is."
I suppose it's a good article for engagement - for journalist types to send to each other to feel better about their lack of knowing how to write code, and for developers to chuckle.
I know a lot of Haskell programmers who would take issue with the idea that programming requires a sequence of instructions.
Uh, yes? It's _not_ a programming language, it's a markup language. It's kind of in the name.
Yes thank you for using 1200 words to state the obvious.
