For her @CodeMeshIO talk, @HeyChelseaTroy argued that we define "programming languages" in a normative way, with the goal of deprestiging and devaluing "not programming languages", like HTML. I agree but want to also ask "are there more useful reasons to do exclude them?"

More specifically, does saying "HTML is not a programming language" help us write HTML better? I think it can! I like to program with test-driven development. Since HTML is not a programming language, I wouldn't use TDD while writing HTML, since it would require other techniques

Similarly I wouldn't expect HTML to have a package manager or other common programming infrastructure. On the other hand, I'd expect things such as Emmett to exist code.visualstudio.com/docs/e…

I'd expect that because HTML is "all about" structure and layout, so it'd be easier to translate between HTML representations than it would to translate between code. Hard to explain why, it just feels a lot easier to me

This approach doesn't just divide things into "programming" and "nonprogramming", it divides both even further based on use case. Like you'd approach a language designed for low-level systems differently from a language used to extend high-level applications; different uses

Sadly, as Chelsea points out, most of the time these discussions aren't about the consequences of different categorizations, but about making categories to keep out the unwashed masses. That's bad