[dragonwriter]

> strictly speaking, HTML and CSS may be considered programming languages, but they lack control structures, design patterns and other interesting tenants of computer science.

They are non-Turing-Complete programming languages, and part of that is having limited control structures. "Design patterns" aren't a language feature, have nothing to do with being a programming language (architecture has design patterns -- in fact, that's where the term comes from), and CSS and HTML both have design patterns (and piles of books describing them.)

> As more sites gravitate toward complex JavaScript-driven web apps, it may be useful to ditch the general term "front-end," differentiating C.S.-oriented front-end developers from those who prefer visual design.

There's already a distinction commonly made between "front-end developers" vs "designers". What more do you think is needed?

[_random_]

> What more do you think is needed?

Hiring managers knowing the difference...

[eliah-lakhin]

> They are non-Turing-Complete programming languages

Wrong! CSS is in fact a turing-complete language. :) I know it sounds weird, but it's true. Turing-completeness can be formally proved for CSS.

[dragonwriter]

> Wrong! CSS is in fact a turing-complete language. :) I know it sounds weird, but it's true. Turing-completeness can be formally proved for CSS.

Where's the proof?

I am aware of a supposed proof that CSS3+HTML5 is Turing complete (but it relies on specified user interactions that aren't part of the defined execution of semantics of either language), but I've never heard of one CSS itself.

[eliah-lakhin]

I didn't mean that it can be proof to CSS independently of HTML of course. And I suppose this requirement is obvious at least because CSS is not executable without HTML at all.

Anyway it seems you are quite familiar with the topic, and I believe you heard all the recent buzz around rule110 etc. But a lot of people don't know about this interesting fact yet.