Why not?
You can still write useful programs and express algorithms, and it is definitely a language, so is it not a programming language?
Indeed the strong normalization property can be useful and desirable.
I could argue that PHP/JS/insert langauge or paradigm seems shitty to me and thus shouldn’t be considered ‘a real programming language/paradigm,’ but that must be using at least several logical fallacies.
EDIT: aha!
You’ve asked a question which is at best debatable, and at worst simply trivial. I’m not sure what you were expecting, but you got a great starting point to a discussion- what is Turing complete? What are some interesting nooks and crannies of that definition? How do the languages you mentioned fit into that definition?
But instead of reacting with genuine curiosity or even stating your own thoughts, you came back with petulance and misplaced irritation, which you expressed by being rude to the people trying to provide you with an actual conversation.
You either came here for the sole purpose of trolling, or English isn’t your first language and you’ve massively misunderstood the tone of the replies you’ve received.
Either way, the answer is to calm down, re-read the replies until you fully understand them, research what’s being said, and then come back with an apology.
I’m not sure what purpose this entire thread is supposed to serve, but if you post on a technical forum, expect technical responses. We don’t really have time to entertain your misplaced temper tantrums.
Sigh. You can’t possibly imply that not being able to make a game in the language isn’t a drawback. Pointing out objective drawbacks isn’t ridicule. Yes, my tone was immature, but my point still stands. I’m saying that if I can’t make a game in a programming language, then it is objectively worse than a Turing complete language, and hence it’s not a “real” programming language. Turing completeness is the best threshold we have for when we go from data to code. If you choose to disregard something that is widely accepted, then this whole discussion is pointless.
I’m sorry, I intended no more than amicable conversation.
I was unaware that it was widely accepted that Turing Completeness was a requirement of the definition of a programming language, that is all.
The question whether a programming language is Turing complete, implies that there are programming languages that are not Turing complete.
On a side note: Little Man Computer is a Von Neumann architecture, with opcodes, for which there is an assembly language, which is a programming language. Due to the inherent limitations of the architecture and its opcodes, it is not Turing complete.
On yet another side note: CSS is Turing complete, but nobody would deem it a programming language.
Yes. There simply is no definite/single definition of what a programming language is.
Everyone is free to choose his/her own definition, and it will be valid.
The only thing we know for sure is what a red line is… or, don’t we…? 
BKorP55Aqvg
when i say that know programming language - I leave HTML, and SQL)
(and if that resume - write them separate: as extra experience )
p.s I don’t understand all that mess that create so simple life question:
“Is HTML, CSS, Xml and SQL ar programming language?
Do I need call them when some one ask about programming languages or write them in resume?”
Nice video.
Up: I draw 7 Perpendicular lines: 2 red line red ink, 2 red line green ink, 2 red line transparent and 1 red line in form balloon kitten.
XD
Oh, god, no…
html and css are descriptive languages. Thus they are usually not counted as programming languages which are function-oriented.