Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2008 21:08 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 299521
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 6th Feb 2008 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: YIKES!"
Member since:

Well, you're both at least partially wrong in what you imply: HTML stands for "Hyper Text Markup Language" and that's exactly what it does: it describes how things should look, but... it has zero program logic that can be expressed in and of itself; therefore, you can't write anything algorithmic in any way, shape or form, and can't do serious work with it where computation is required, at least not without going into a deep WTFery state of abusing an HTML-capable browser.

HTML simply isn't a programming language, and it is not remotely Turing-complete.

Reply Parent Score: 2

by umccullough on Wed 6th Feb 2008 00:58 in reply to "RE[5]: YIKES!"
umccullough Member since:

I certainly don't believe that the HTML exposed by OSNews is entirely static either.

Clearly some programming had to go into the backend server in order to GENERATE the HTML. Perhaps it was even intelligent enough to figure out what browser was requesting it - and thus altered the HTML on-the-fly.

So, while HTML maybe is not "programming language" in itself, it certainly requires programming to generate HTML of the complexity displayed here on OSNews.

I'll even leave out the notion that client-side HTML these days is largely encumbered with javascript and/or other dynamic HTML technologies...

Reply Parent Score: 2

by Chicken Blood on Wed 6th Feb 2008 00:58 in reply to "RE[5]: YIKES!"
Chicken Blood Member since:

Regardless it is still a language, a declarative one.

No-one made conditions about it having to be Turing-complete.

Reply Parent Score: 1