Yes, that's just what the YouTube comments insisted.
I'm not really interested in the argument, but all you've said so far is "it's domain specific" or "it's not Turing complete", neither of which are actually requirements for programming languages as a whole. It's not particularly difficult to devise a sufficiently loose definition of "program" that HTML fits into, too. Or, rather, it's difficult to envision a definition that LaTeX fits into and HTML+CSS fits into and SQL fits into and LISP fits into and so on, but HTML does not without your argument simply restating "it's domain specific" or "it's not Turing complete".
However, it's also not a particularly interesting discussion, either, because the only purpose behind such categorization is to assign value judgements like "a 'real' programming language can be used for systems programming".
> [...] because the only purpose behind such categorization is to assign value judgements like "a 'real' programming language can be used for systems programming".
And the other unstated purpose is gatekeeping. Oof, for such a relatively risk-free, comfortable and privileged profession, we're such an insecure lot.
I'm not really interested in the argument, but all you've said so far is "it's domain specific" or "it's not Turing complete", neither of which are actually requirements for programming languages as a whole. It's not particularly difficult to devise a sufficiently loose definition of "program" that HTML fits into, too. Or, rather, it's difficult to envision a definition that LaTeX fits into and HTML+CSS fits into and SQL fits into and LISP fits into and so on, but HTML does not without your argument simply restating "it's domain specific" or "it's not Turing complete".
However, it's also not a particularly interesting discussion, either, because the only purpose behind such categorization is to assign value judgements like "a 'real' programming language can be used for systems programming".