Timeline for Why does it matter that HTML and CSS are not programming languages?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2011 at 3:06 | comment | added | Erik Reppen | My primary experience is front end web/UI development. I wouldn't call HTML or CSS programming languages. But I'd lose a lot more respect for somebody who rolled their eyes when somebody responded to the OPs question about 'languages' in general with a list that included CSS than I would some kid who listed CSS under programming languages on his resume. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 22:02 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | No, that's what you are trying to discuss in an attempt of getting out of the corner. Yes, C and Lisp are different types of languages. The only similarity is that they are general purpose languages, which HTML is not, it's a domain specific language. This has been mentioned multiple times, but facts and arguments are obviously wasted here. You are wrong. Deal with it. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 20:58 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Lennart: No, it's a discussion of whether a definition is useful or not, and I fail to see where I'm completely refusing anything. I note that you use different terms for C and Lisp programming, removing the similarity, and getting into technical terms. I consider a taxonomy that separates C and Lisp, but not Prolog and HTML (both presumably declarative programming languages in your terminology) misleading and useless. As an exercise, try avoiding unfounded ad hominem arguments. It may make your points more clear. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 18:50 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | C is an imperative programming language. C++ is imperative and object oriented. Both are also statically typed programming language. Lisp is a functional programming language. Python is an imperative object-oriented strong dynamically typed programming language. This is not a discussion about if a certain definition is "good" or "bad" but yours and others complete refusal of accepting that the definition even exists or have any validity whatsoever. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 18:40 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Lennart: Okay, now tell me what kind of language C++ (or C, or Common Lisp, or whatever) is. This terminology should reflect the fact that it's a different sort of thing than HTML is, and it is used for entirely different purposes. Unless you can, then I think your opinion tends towards confusion in language, and therefore I think it a bad one. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 9:25 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | Damn, this issue is really hitting some deep emotional territory. You just can't handle that there are people in the world who define "programming language" differently than you, can't you? These kinds of reactions is what you usually get when discussing religion and politics. Open up your mind, people! See the light! It's an OPINION! And it's not even mine! | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 5:32 | comment | added | Matthew Read | @Lennart 95% of people agree, that's why HTML is a "markup language" (it's in the name for crying out loud) and not a "programming language". If you want a general term for both, call them languages. Congratulations, doing HTML and doing C++ are both just writing language. Happy now? Or do you want to start arguing that C++ is a markup language, just to be fair? "people who know a lot of the issues does not always agree. How would you explain that?" The minority loses. Ever used a dictionary? Did you start arguing with the dictionary? | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 5:29 | comment | added | Charles E. Grant | @Lennart Regebro, every standard definition of a programming language (even on Wikipeida) says that a programming language can describe an algorithm. How can you describe an algorithm in HTML and CSS? | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 2:54 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @Orbling: Yes, so you claim. Over and over and over, like it's God Own Truth. Even though it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that this is an opinion, and not everyone agrees. HTML and CSS in fact controls a lot of things. CSS is most obvious as it controls look and layout. Why is it, I wonder, programming of you write a javascript to reload a page every 5 seconds, but not programming if it's done in a HTML header? | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 2:49 | comment | added | Orbling | @Anon.: LOL, sounds like it doesn't it? But genuinely I respect HTML builders, it is arguably harder than most programming tasks as HTML renderers vary in their interpretation of the data structure. Loads of bugs and obscurities everywhere in the older browsers, conflicting standards; it's bloody hard work. My head designer and I work together almost all day everyday uniting frontend and backend, indeed he and I came together to our current company from another as a pair, so integrated in our working practices are we. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 2:41 | comment | added | Orbling | @Lennart Regebro: Logo is a programming language, indeed one of my favourites (programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/21028/…). A Data-Description-Language (DDL) is not a programming language, it controls nothing, just describes data in a structured form. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 2:32 | comment | added | Anon. | @Orbling: Is "I work with HTML guys" the new "one of my friends is {insert minority group here}"? | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:40 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | Programming is writing code to make the computer do something. You can do that with HTML. Yes, it is very limited as a programming language, but so is LOGO, which is generally accepted to be a programming language. Matthew: You claim that your definition is the One True Definition, yet people who know a lot of the issues does not always agree. How would you explain that? | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:34 | comment | added | Orbling | @Lennart Regebro: I do not regard HTML guys as inferior, I work with them day-by-day, they do their part, design and structural build/engineering, I do my part, programming. Neither group has any more or less respect for each other, both critical to the task, both highly skilled. One is programming, one is not. No value judgement. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:30 | comment | added | Orbling | @Matthew Read: Excellently put. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:29 | comment | added | Matthew Read | The word "program" has a defined meaning that is generally agreed upon. You can't make a program with HTML, therefore making something with HTML is not "programming". Anyone who argues differently is arguing that the very words they use in their argument can have their meaning changed arbitrarily, and in that case I would arbitrarily assign their words to mean nothing. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:28 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @Orbling: They are domain specific declarative programming languages according to the most common definitions of what that means. See for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… So, sorry, you fail. According to perfectly common and sensible definitions, they are programming languages. And according to completely different, but equally sensible and common definitions they are not programming languages. Both views are correct. But the ones that whack their opinion over the heads of others are insecure and need to feel superior to HTML guys. | |
| Dec 20, 2010 at 1:22 | comment | added | Orbling | -1 It is meaningful as HTML is not a programming language, it does not have the basic elements of such a thing - it merely describes the layout on a page, by the same extension a book on technical drawing is a programming language. | |
| Dec 19, 2010 at 22:47 | history | answered | Lennart Regebro | CC BY-SA 2.5 |