I also have to challenge some of the arguments here. Why mention Turing completeness as a criteria if you ignore it in some cases? Why does designer intent matter more than practical use?
As I said, it dilutes definitions. Terms become meaningless if you make them to broad. If we would consider SQL a programming language, then we would also consider somebody who's main role is to write SQL a database programmer.
One of the main issues with natural language is that it is really unclear about meaning of words, and sentences, and sometimes even paragraphs. If we keep making definitions ambiguous it will only get worse, and we could literally(*) lose its purpose.
*) this is just an example where this word has been misused so often, that literally has as alternative meaning "figuratively".
ps, I would not say that SQL, HTML+CSS, Minecraft Redstone have a practical programming use; it's rather impractical to use it as programming language.
I guess my point was that you don’t really further solidify a definition. You provide some arbitrary criteria (Turing Completeness) that you simultaneously violate (some Turing Complete languages aren’t programming languages).
In other words, it seems like your criteria is more of a feeling or bias rather than something that can be verified.
At any rate, I do appreciate the discussion! I think you raise a good point about diluting terminology. I’m just not sure it’s an issue in this case.
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 also have to challenge some of the arguments here. Why mention Turing completeness as a criteria if you ignore it in some cases? Why does designer intent matter more than practical use?
As I said, it dilutes definitions. Terms become meaningless if you make them to broad. If we would consider SQL a programming language, then we would also consider somebody who's main role is to write SQL a database programmer.
One of the main issues with natural language is that it is really unclear about meaning of words, and sentences, and sometimes even paragraphs. If we keep making definitions ambiguous it will only get worse, and we could literally(*) lose its purpose.
*) this is just an example where this word has been misused so often, that literally has as alternative meaning "figuratively".
ps, I would not say that SQL, HTML+CSS, Minecraft Redstone have a practical programming use; it's rather impractical to use it as programming language.
I guess my point was that you don’t really further solidify a definition. You provide some arbitrary criteria (Turing Completeness) that you simultaneously violate (some Turing Complete languages aren’t programming languages).
In other words, it seems like your criteria is more of a feeling or bias rather than something that can be verified.
At any rate, I do appreciate the discussion! I think you raise a good point about diluting terminology. I’m just not sure it’s an issue in this case.