Agreed by pedants. The whole post about spelling mistakes is pure pedantry. When I notice myself caring about such things, I admonish my superficiality.

I know lots of brilliant people who don't write well. If Google doesn't run posts through 10 levels checkers, fine.

Excluding non-turing-complete languages is probably a bad idea technically, as perhaps one wants to promote a toolkit of appropriately-powered languages. (I've seen arguments over "HTML isn't a programming language" before, and really don't care about the of precision when it's unwarranted in the context. Concepts like mathematical functions weren't all that precise until precision was needed.)

Isn't Coq's language, Gallina, not Turing complete (all functions must terminate)? It's still a programming language.

De facto evidence that HTML is a programming language is right here on the computer screen. Arguments premised on turning the ought's of should's into is's are collectively considered fallacious. The fallacy goes by a variety of names including "is-ought fallacy", "naturalistic fallacy" and "definist fallacy".

That Turing completeness is a property of some programming languages does not imply that all programming languages are Turing complete or that Turing completeness is an essential property of computing languages. The assumption that the extents of Turing Complete languages are identical to the extents of Programming Languages requires some evidence in support.

Programming languages for describing state machines need not be Turing Complete and their implicit avoidance of the Halting Problem make them useful in practice