I would say that HTML is a programming language of the Declarative programming language paradigm.

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.

Declarative vs procedural vs functional vs whatever is not the issue here. It's just whether you can translate stuff in one language into another. If I wrote a Python service to encrypt and decrypt your data, can I translate it to Haskell? Or how about using Minecraft mechanics? Why or why not?

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.

HTML can be used to tell different devices in different contexts what to display and how to display it. It serves as a sort of general DSL, which is a bit of an oxymoron and does come remarkably close to describing a programming language.

That's not really what's going on though. Semantically, it is a type of document that browsers to display in certain ways. A HTML isn't really programming your web browser any more than a .wav file is "programming your audio player". I suppose though, semantics are ultimately made up, and we can indeed choose to flip it such that documents are actually programs for platforms that are the document browsers

> A HTML isn't really programming your web browser any more than a .wav file is "programming your audio player".

Also not any more than a .c file is "programming your compiler" nor a binary executable is "programming your operating system" nor an operating system is "programming your hardware" nor hardware is "programming mathematics". Disclaiming HTML as a programming language when it is actually powerful for programming comes across to me as a No True Scotsman argument about "real" programming languages being used to program only in some contexts or to make only some things as the program.

I agree that it's a matter of semantics but I also understand HTML to be a programming language, semantically. It seems to me that where one draws the line for programming language is always going to be arbitrary unless one is willing to see that a language being used to program in some context is a programming language.

> Disclaiming HTML as a programming language when it is actually powerful for programming comes across to me as a No True Scotsman argument about "real" programming languages being used to program only in some contexts or to make only some things as the program.

I mean it's just about the traditional intent, and still oft-used understanding, that web browsers are viewers for hypertext documents. But sure, feel free to call GCC a "C browser" and .c files "c documents"

It's not about "calling GCC a C browser" but recognizing that a "document" and a "program" are not mutually exclusive. Is HTML as a static document really so different from cards with holes punched through them (literally paper documents)?

You’re just repeating what I said in the first comment, that they’re totally interchangeable and that the distinction is arbitrary