a programming language in computer science is defined by a technology that is referred to as "Turing Complete"
And who exactly is "computer science"? I agree that CSS is not a programming language, but not because some magic CS authority claims it to be. Everyone in this community is to some extent part of CS and has an influence over the language we use.
This isn't actually a topic for discussion
It very much is, precisely because the CS community seems to be quite split on this question.
But anyone who knows CSS knows it DOES solve the halting problem and so we can conclude CSS is not Turing Complete.
This is a smaller nitpick, but CSS doesn't "solve" the halting problem; it's that the halting problem doesn't exist for CSS because it is, as you've pointed out, not turing-complete.
[CSS] should not be respected as a programming language.
That phrasing is a bit ambiguous. I'd say CSS should not be respected for being a programming language (because it isn't), but it should be respected just as any programming language would.
Ultimately, being turing-complete is a very technical way for classifying languages, but it doesn't tell us how difficult or powerful it is.
It is not some magic authority on CS that claims this. This is a fully accepted concept by EVERY computer scientist in the world..
If the halting problem doesn't exist for CSS that makes it non turing complete as well.
It does not need to tell us how powerful it is (eventhough it is) it is simply about being turing complete or not, power is irrelvant here.
That's not exactly how science works. Not everyone in this community is a part of Computer Science. I think I can safely assume most of us aren't. The same as talking about quantum mechanics doesn't make me a part of Quantum Physics as a scientific field. Publishing high quality white papers in a peer-reviewed science journal, on the other hand, kinda goes hand in hand with scientific method.
The fact that the community is split on this question shouldn't matter. Some people still question special relativity, or general relativity, or think that the Earth is flat. Does this change anything regarding those theories itself?
You're saying a community called "dev" is mostly visited by non-developers? You realize terminology isn't unilaterally decided by academia, right? Whether you're "just" a javascript developer, or a researcher who's written 10 books makes no difference here.
I wasn't saying anything about developers or non-developers. I was saying on being part of CS. Let me try a different example: writing fan fiction doesn't make you a part of literary theory.
Terminology is decided by someone or something, whether it's academia or not, and if we do not define a term in a clear, non-amibguous way, we cannot use it. Which term are you talking about?
When you say it makes no difference here, which here do you mean? Do you mean this community? Or this discussion? Or do you mean that CSS being a programming language is a question we should vote on, and it doesn't matter who the vote comes from?
I'm sorry, but it does make difference to me. To each and any sentence I will apply my critical thinking, and I always leave the possibility that a neophyte is brighter than Edsger Dijkstra. However, the probability is quite, quite low.
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.
And who exactly is "computer science"? I agree that CSS is not a programming language, but not because some magic CS authority claims it to be. Everyone in this community is to some extent part of CS and has an influence over the language we use.
It very much is, precisely because the CS community seems to be quite split on this question.
This is a smaller nitpick, but CSS doesn't "solve" the halting problem; it's that the halting problem doesn't exist for CSS because it is, as you've pointed out, not turing-complete.
That phrasing is a bit ambiguous. I'd say CSS should not be respected for being a programming language (because it isn't), but it should be respected just as any programming language would.
Ultimately, being turing-complete is a very technical way for classifying languages, but it doesn't tell us how difficult or powerful it is.
It is not some magic authority on CS that claims this. This is a fully accepted concept by EVERY computer scientist in the world..
If the halting problem doesn't exist for CSS that makes it non turing complete as well.
It does not need to tell us how powerful it is (eventhough it is) it is simply about being turing complete or not, power is irrelvant here.
That's not exactly how science works. Not everyone in this community is a part of Computer Science. I think I can safely assume most of us aren't. The same as talking about quantum mechanics doesn't make me a part of Quantum Physics as a scientific field. Publishing high quality white papers in a peer-reviewed science journal, on the other hand, kinda goes hand in hand with scientific method.
The fact that the community is split on this question shouldn't matter. Some people still question special relativity, or general relativity, or think that the Earth is flat. Does this change anything regarding those theories itself?
You're saying a community called "dev" is mostly visited by non-developers? You realize terminology isn't unilaterally decided by academia, right? Whether you're "just" a javascript developer, or a researcher who's written 10 books makes no difference here.
I'm sorry, but it does make difference to me. To each and any sentence I will apply my critical thinking, and I always leave the possibility that a neophyte is brighter than Edsger Dijkstra. However, the probability is quite, quite low.