I think you and I fundamentally disagree here. To me, the languages we typically think of as programming languages are just text (data) with some formal syntax. They derive their meaning from the interpreters or compilers that convert them into something useful for a machine. In other words, images on their own are not programming languages, but the esoteric interpreters provide the context to treat them as such.
I’m not sure why there has to be some arbitrary criteria to exclude or include different data formats from the programming language classification.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree here. To me, the languages we typically think of as programming languages are just text (data) with some formal syntax. They derive their meaning from the interpreters or compilers that convert them into something useful for a machine. In other words, images on their own are not programming languages, but the esoteric interpreters provide the context to treat them as such.
I’m not sure why there has to be some arbitrary criteria to exclude or include different data formats from the programming language classification.