There a different 3 ways of thinking about programm{ers,ing} that I've seen, divided by the focus: elegance, efficiency, or effectiveness. The former care about code as a mathematical poem, expressing the solution to an idealized problem in a concise and beautiful manner. Then are the people - perhaps yourself included - who care most about wringing maximum performance out of the hardware. Finally, there is the much larger group of folks who care about solving a domain-specific problem & see programming as a means to that end.

@Tony I agree, there are many different ways of categorising programmers! This post gives just one such categorisation that's relevant to one purpose -- other categorisations will definitely be more relevant in other cases.

'Put formally, the system continually changes state (in the sense of “statemachine” state), '

In the Lambda calculus, or functional programming more generally, we don't have state, but we can still write programs. HTML/CSS give us a way to map inputs (URLs and form inputs) onto rendered pixels by specifying the mapping declaratively in terms of composable elements. The question then becomes, is HTML/CSS Turing complete? The answer depends on how you interpret inputs and outputs, but under some interpretations the answer is yes. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak_sWZyHi3E

@Steve (Long time, no etc etc!) I agree that you can have state changes in HTML/CSS (I linked to the blog version of the youtube video in footnote [5] -- it's a great read!). That said, most people that I see using HTML don't use the features that enable you to see that this is possible. Indeed, I remember being amazed when I first read that it is possible. But, perhaps, I shouldn't have been, as I've seen quite a few DSLs turn out to be unintentionally Turing complete. One of the most amusing was when I happened to be sat next to someone involved in the design of Java's type system on the day that this paper on the Turing completeness of its type system was released. I got to show it to him, and we were both much amused!

ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#Naming

Linus Torvalds did not name Linux after himself - he specifically considered that too egotistical. He initially called it "Freax".