Meme Monday!
Today's cover image comes from last week's thread.
DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in poor taste will be downvoted by mods.
Meme Monday!
Today's cover image comes from last week's thread.
DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in poor taste will be downvoted by mods.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Chris Jarvis -
Peter Kim Frank -
Thomas Bnt -
Best Codes -
Top comments (75)
I'm living this right now
The utter joy
This is good
It me
😂
This week's awful AI meme. Though this one kind of goes hard.
If the pic on the wall was VSCode's icon, I would've lost my shit
omg wth lol
OMG, it's me every time!
You folks still use
this
in 2024? :O For what?(It's not)
Hyper-Text Markup Language
It's not entirely a markup language either anymore though
Sure, ok.
Wait until you find out that YAML ain't a markup language either 🤯
Oh, you mean that one that's an acronym for "YAML Ain't Markup Language"?
What a surprise!
Yes, the one that was originally named "Yet Another Markup Language", but got renamed because it actually is a data description language, just like XML, and increasingly also HTML.
Maybe those two would have renamed themselves too, if someone had found a cool new backronym.
You're so good at gatekeeping!
You can't gatekeep languages, that's absurd
And yet, there's always someone that says HTML isn't a markup language...
Because it's not.
Sure, ok. And the CPU is not a processing unit.
Look, the question started from whether HTML is a programming language or not. I personally like to think it is, because I can express (very limited, sure) logic with it. But I've never met anyone saying that the most classic and exemplary markup language is not a markup language. There are several explicit tags to mark part of the document with various effects and meanings, like
<b>this one</b>
or<details><summary>many others</summary> if you know them a little</details>
. And even if you can abuse its syntax for other goals (data transfer or whatever), saying that it's not a markup language will only mess with others' understanding.HTML is a markup language, and it's almost universally used as a markup language (in that differs from XML), end of the story. Now, what's your definition of a markup language?
JSON is a markup language then
Also, note how I only really said HTML isn't entirely a markup language anymore, and that is pretty obvious. Lots of HTML code these days isn't really text with formatting information anymore; it's really just a language for component composition in many cases.
Composition has been there since the inception of HTML and hasn't changed since then. "Text with formatting" is only a possible effect of "marking up" in HTML, and it's far from exhausting all the possible uses. So no, "HTML isn't entirely a markup language anymore" isn't obvious at all.
Avoiding the question with a provocative assertion only drives to think you have no clear idea of what a "markup language" is.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Adding structure to text doesn't mean it wasn't primarily used as a markup language. If you want a concise criterion, look at the primary information carrier. In a markup language, the information is in the text, and the language provides meta-information, be they formatting in the classic sense, or semantic context in a slightly newer sense.
What changes when you look at modern HTML is that quite often the structure is the information you're expressing. There's nothing to be marked up, it's just a tree of data, similar to XML as well.
To say HTML is still nothing more than a markup language in all its uses is effectively to argue that the meaning of "markup language" has shifted to something completely different in the last handful of decades, and at that point, JSON and YAML and TOML are just as much markup languages.
To put it even more simply:
Web development has experienced a paradigm shift from where the most basic imaginable document looked like this:
to where it now looks like this:
and is probably only called a "document" by people who've been in the field for more than a decade or two.
That's HTML right there. Try removing all the text nodes from a web page: what remains? Pictures, pseudo-elements, placeholders and...?
That's not HTML in the common sense. Just look at this page and tell me there's nothing to mark up. Or feel free to say that dev.to is not an ordinary case of HTML usage.
Never said that. On the contrary, I said that could be abused to create something entirely different, but it's not how it's normally used. On the other hand, you flat out said "it's not" a markup language. That's on you.
Because it is a document, although (almost) empty. Are you really considering the starting point of a SPA to prove your point, excluding what happens at runtime? The fact that a HTML page can dynamically change doesn't change the fact that HTML is primarily a markup language where text - and not structure - is the information. Even if you use JavaScript to bring that information in. The final result - i.e. what's actually read by the end user - is text marked up with HTML.
What we actually see lately with web pages and applications is a lot of
<div>
soups with<span>
croutons, built with unnecessarily nested DOM trees, and you're implying that is the actual information. That's just mind-boggling.JSON, YAML and similar have nothing to "mark" things up, period. Unless you give your own interpretation to the structure.
What was actually said:
You clearly don't give a shit about having an actual discussion. Go get your cheap internet points somewhere else, I hear twitter is a good place for misrepresentations these days. I don't care anymore..
You've been proven wrong and you resort to playing victim 🙄 Good job, really. Do you always accuse the others of getting "cheap internet points" every time you lose an argument?
What if you won this argument? You'd have be the one who got "cheap internet points"? Or would have been a great victory for... "correct representation"?! (Really, what?!)
If I'm here to still debate to someone like you, is exactly because I've been trying to understand the absurdity of your statements, but it turns out your justifications are just as clueless. I've got nothing from this unfortunately, I just hope nobody else will fall for your shenanigans.
Starting from this one:
🥱
It's an optical illusion 🧐