There are basically three kinds of questions that flow out of these dust-ups:
- How expansively do you define HTML?
- How narrowly do you define “programming?”
- How scared are you that the prestige you associate with your job will be diluted by people you view as plebes?
In conclusion, programming is an activity that consists of meetings and thinking, with text files as a common artifact.
On the one hand, “HTML” is a whole suite of monstrously complex interlocking technologies and a ‘programming language’ is just “a formal language comprising a set of instructions that produce various kinds of output.”
On the other hand, “HTML” is just some formatting instructions for plaintext and a ‘programming language’ is a Turing-complete language that compiles to a standalone binary for execution.
Both extremes are true and examining the assumptions inherent in them (as well as the exceptions) is interesting and enlightening. But it’s also “is a hot dog a sandwich” stuff.
When these arguments start up, most people aren’t trying to examine the assumptions inherent in our complex digital world; they’re expressing a kind of visceral outrage at ~stolen code valor~.
And most of the people who argue in favor of HTML-as-programming aren’t insisting HTML documents are structurally equivalent to Haskel source code. They’re demanding acknowledgement that the work can and often is similarly complex for similar reasons.