linux.poet said:

Best programming language to develop an application for Windows?
Best programming language to develop an application for Linux?

Click to expand...

Without wanting to seem coy, the answer depends on what you’re trying to program, because some programming languages let you write a simple program very fast, and some applications require performance or specialized libraries. For example on Linux a lot of applications can be quickly programmed by using simple shell scripts and pipelines to connect the output of existing text processing tools. For example, you can take the output of one program, pipe it through grep to match a pattern, pipe it through sed to change that pattern, and then use the > character to output this to a new file (the only place where pipelines don’t work as well is editing files in place, although with some difficulty you can use ed to edit a file in place and control it with a pipeline, but it wasn’t meant for this; another problem is without a special program to sit in the middle, pipelines won’t wait for an EOF before processing the input, but will start processing it immediately; usually this is OK, but there are some cases where you might want the full file before you start working on it. There is also the awk programming language, which is a mini programming language that runs in the shell, although by the time you are using awk, you should probably be using python (historically Perl was written to replace awk for advanced text processing in the command line, but Perl is easy to write but hard to read; Python and Ruby were both written as Perl replacements with a focus on being more user friendly, and most importantly, producing easier to read code). While I was rooting for Ruby, Python won, but then Javascript became a viable language, and Ruby remains an option.

For general purpose programming on both Windows and Linux, the broadest support right now both in terms of learning resources and library support is for Python, and you can also now write applications in Javascript, thanks to Node.JS

GUI development is possible with Python, Perl, Ruby, .NET, Java, as well as the old standard of C++. Microsoft .NET languages such as C# run on Linux; .NET first being ported by Novell as Mono, but then, Microsoft acquired it and now publishes .NET for Linux themselves. The open source .NET Microsoft publishes also runs on other major open source operating systems like FreeBSD*.

I would advise against using PHP for any further web development, since both node.js and Python are superior platforms for backend programming (and with node.js, you’re using Javascript for both your backend and front end, and the idea is you’re less likely to make a mistake programming in one language rather than two), and PHP is a brutal language, in my opinion, not one I’ve ever beeen impressed with.

If you know Java, it is still widely used and supported (the main version of Minecraft is still being developed in Java and serious players prefer it to the other versions), and Java is particularly loved for enterprise applications of various sorts, including a lot of bloated systems running on application servers that give sysadmins who have to deal with them migraines.

Also other languages like Python, Ruby, Lisp (Clojure), and Scala, the latter two being particularly nice, run on the Java Virtual Machine.

*Most of what works on Linux works on FreeBSD, and most of what works on FreeBSD works on OpenBSD, NetBSD and Illumos (Solaris); also there are a few other workable open source operating systems; GNU finally got their Hurd kernel to a usable level, and there is DragonFlyBSD which has an interesting and elegant cluster filesystem. I myself prefer FreeBSD and OpenBSD to most Linux distributions, because OpenBSD has networking software I want and the most secure web server built in; the security on OpenBSD is superb, FreeBSD on the other hand is often faster than Linux and was the second OS after Illumos/Solaris to have ZFS, and FreeBSD’s jails are better in my opinion than most Linux containers, and certainly simpler. FreeBSD’s ports system of automatic compilation of a huge library of software with dependency resolution was the inspiration for the portage system that makes Gentoo famous, except with FreeBSD you don’t have to use it as it also provides binary packages.

But the main reason I prefer the BSDs is they don’t have systemd or a few other features most of the major distros on Linux now have, with some prominent exceptions.

Delvianna said:

Hi there The entire law that was given by Moses started with the 10 commandments but that was very different by the subsequent ceremonial laws that he then gave later.

Click to expand...

Hi! Some think the Decalogue is separate from all the other laws, but James is a good example that everything in the Pentateuch is Law: Jas 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
Besides it must be realized that the Law was not only given solely to the nation of Israel, but that the entirety of it, including the Decalogue was "taken away" with the OT, when Christ said "it is finished." "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" (Heb 10:9).

Delvianna said:

The idea that God will save us against our will, is not biblical.

Click to expand...

True, then God would be "trespassing!" The concept that God would only chooses certain people for salvation is not sensible, because He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1Ti 2:4).

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2Pe 3:9; ).

Apple Sky said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

No one can prove anything to you; you just refuse to accept anything that does not agree with your beliefs.

Apple Sky said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

I don’t have to. It is what it is. Is like you asking me to prove that we breathe oxygen. Your conspiracy theory mindset has taken you to a place where you doubt the obvious and the proven. If you get on a plane at 35000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth. There are thousands of commercial flights per day so there are hundreds of thousands of people that see the curvature of the earth daily. Have ever flown on an airplane?

Antartica is called the South Pole because it is in the south part of earth’s globe while the North Pole is on the north. This is fully and completely proven. The earth is round and this has been fully and completely proven. There is no conspiracy, only you feigning ignorance.

Apple Sky said:

So the sky is strong as a molten looking glass ?

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of my quote.
David said that he had looked up all the verses with the word "firmament" in them, and none of them say that it is solid or a dome.
You replied:

Apple Sky said:

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Click to expand...

The verse that you quoted - presumably to prove David wrong - does not have the word "firmament" but the word "sky".
So that's the first thing. The second is that it does not say that the sky/firmament IS molten glass.

Mercy Shown said:

One day in 7? Why not everyday all day long?

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the thing that always baffles me. We are to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. That would definitely be 24/7 (not just one day of the week) And of course in this day and age especially all fall short of this from time to time because other matters fill the mind, etc. So who hasn't broken this commandment as well as love our neighbors as our selves from time to time. We are to strive for those but no one will ever be perfect in the flesh. Thankfully God is the heart knower.

And people always confuse the fact that the Sabbath was made for man -man's rest. And today we are to be in Christ's rest 24/7. That's where our abode is.

And I find these debates usually fall to the subject of what day should one go to church and worship. It's as you stated in this thread I think most focus on that and not what the Sabbath really entailed back then.

The Sabbath was set as example of rest after work. And Christ did the work on the cross (fulfilling the law) and that's where we find our rest. It's not about some day of the week at this point. But some people see Hebrews 4 differently. But there's a clear difference between sabbaton (the weekly repose) and sabbatismos- and that's the one that remains.

Apple Sky said:

Because I know God is the greatest scientist of them all.

Click to expand...

And yet he did not dictate a scientific account of how he made his creation.

AV1611VET said:

Click to expand...

I'm glad you're so happy that I'm lonely.

Belk said:

I also have no expertise in law so this is coming from my layman's understanding.

I believe international law is against these types of actions, but only in areas the US has not signed on or agreed to.


I would agree with that.

The issue I have with Trumps actions are two-fold.

1) The legal authorization to kill enemy combatants that Bush and Obama used was later seen as faulty.

2) The designation of "Narco-terrorist" is seems completely made up specifically to bypass the law to allow for these strikes.

Taken together this use of force strikes me as very problematic. Most especially since it basis the entire premise on people who voluntarily take a substance and then suffer adverse effects. Imagine if we killed people for having the audacity to brew beer simply because someone who bought it might die of liver failure.

Click to expand...

I agree but I think that the drug problem is a bit more problematic than you suggest. I know of several people in my family and families of my friends that have either died because of drugs or have drugs destroyed their lives so I don’t particularly have much compassion for those involved in the drug trade.

Another thing I forgot to mention - you don't have to stay on topic they way you need to in forum threads. Sometimes stuff pops into your head, you know. I can ask it if you can get cancer of the red blood cells, then follow that by asking what on earth is the appeal of the sport of curling, then ask for instructions on how to make a small atom bomb for personal use. My Bambi's a good girl, she never complains.

Hentenza said:

It is not fabricated at all. This is the actual map of Antarctica.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Strong in Him said:

That says "sky" not "dome".

Click to expand...

So the sky is strong as a molten looking glass ?

rocknanchor said:

Another of my interest as well. On a scale of 1-to-10, (1 being none) how steep is the competition for the competent entry-level topographer today?

Click to expand...

You mean typographer? Its a skill for graphics design - there is plenty of demand for graphics designers, although there is pressure due to AI, but there is never much pay, so graphics design is something you do if you love visual arts and want to only work in some form of art, whether that’s designing books or magazines or logos or websites, but only the most commercially successful designers who are able to become partners at, or owners of, reputable design firms with large corporate clients, companies like Landor, Wolff Olins, Interbrand, Wolff-Olins, Mercer and so on, and some specialists (Addison historically specialized in making annual reports), most of these consultancies being owned by ad agency conglomerates, by the way, make some amount of money, as well as in-house design managers. Architects, transportation and industrial designers probably make the most amount of money but also have the most technically demanding jobs, which feature elements of engineering, and architecture is also known for nasty politics that create a somewhat toxic culture.

Among the subset of graphics designers who specialize in typography, either in desigining books and publications or in designing typefaces or both, these are a very nice group of people, they don’t make a lot of money, but they do beautiful work. Some, work work for boutique printing houses like Arrion Press in San Francisco, are artisans, that produce incredibly beautiful books using traditional methods, and set type the old fashioned way; I myself would not enjoy that kind of work as handling the metal type when I played with it as a kid was uncomfortable, I don’t like handling small metal objects, and the work is difficult and intensive, but I have always enjoyed computer-based typography, which when I was doing it in the early 90s was in its infancy; Adobe InDesign I don’t think existed yet, a lot of manuals were designed using a product called FrameMaker, and for UNIX applications, we used (and still use) a lovely suite of macros called LaTeX which generate Adobe PostScript and PDF files that produce beautiful printed documents by default (most computer science and many other science papers are authored or typeset on LaTeX even today; you can always tell because LaTeX has its own default font, Computer Modern, and a distinct default visual style which is timeless and elegant, and also it has support for mathematical characters, function graphs and other things many computer science, math and physics papers are likely to need).

Strong in Him said:

Why don't you listen, then?

Click to expand...

Because I know God is the greatest scientist of them all.

Apple Sky said:

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Click to expand...

That says "sky" not "dome".
It also says it is AS molten glass - "as" and "like" are similes; comparisons.

That verse does not say "the sky IS a molten looking glass.".

Michie said:

Because you did not read the content. Just the title.

Click to expand...

Actually, in your original post, you mentioned clearly the subject was "feminism" . Simply reading the post would have done the trick without even having to read the article.

bèlla said:

My associates have already done that and created sophisticated models of themselves that accomplish the work they can offload and have their team review. I wasn’t interested in the technology until I watched a presentation and saw it in action and I was sold. Much like them I know my subject well and I’m not utilizing it in that manner but it’s beneficial for scaling and taking on projects I normally wouldn’t bother with when required.

Datacenters are a topic in themselves. We’ll have a lot of them soon. Do you plan to move to that side of the industry?

~bella

Click to expand...

I actually spent several years in the carrier / telecom datacenters in Southern California. I managed a colocation facility and ran my own managed hosting company, but when a relative became ill in 2016 I had to take care of her full time, and I sold the managed hosting business in 2017 to facilitate re-entering into the ministry. I was always more a systems programmer, and I kept being asked to do sysadmin work on Linux systems which I don’t enjoy (the managed hosting I did was of VMware servers, which I enjoy admining, or enjoyed; they’ve been taken over by Broadcom which has shut down several of their best products and raised the prices on the rest so as to squeeze maximum revenue from large enterprise customers who will take several years to migrate off of VMware, while stopping all new innovation, so unless things change, sadly, VMware belongs to the past for me, which is a shame, because their approach to virtualization was head and shoulders above everyone else, and the leading products from other vendors mostly are implementing ideas that vmware pioneered (for example, Microsoft Hyper V or Linux KVM - VMware was the first outside of special hardware based virtualization on mainframes and midrange computers to have live migration, reliability zones, failover, high availability, memory deduplication (so two identical guest operating systems don’t use twice the memory), memory compression (so identical regions of memory are overlapped) - the latter two also speed up live migration - and also storage migration. I’m not sure of any other products as yet that can do all of that, which is why what’s happened to VMware is such a shame. Also the loss of VMware Workstation, which was the best desktop virtualization product (VMware Fusion for the Mac would have gone away anyway probably due to the migration of the Mac to Apple silicon, although in principle, Windows for ARM devices could run without too much of a performance hit if Microsoft licensed). At any rate, I enjoy virtualization, and I enjoy network administration (especially with Cisco and Juniper equipment, and a few other vendors who had innovative products rather than merely ripping off Cisco like most vendors did with varying qualities), and I enjoy operating system design, so I focused my efforts on those.

My main push into AI has been largely since I became ill; I started working with it in 2023 but earlier this year when I became very ill I decided to focus on learning everything I could about it while I recovered, so as to add prompt engineering and AI integration to my practice, although I’ve moved so far past the realm of commercial applicability with my latest project, I have no idea how to turn it into a commercial product in its fullness, although it will greatly help everything else.

Michie said:

Because you did not read the content. Just the title.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but surely titles should be more closely related to the subject of the thread, so the rest of us know whether or not we are interested in following or replying.

Apple Sky said:

Yes, you have many times.

Click to expand...

Why don't you listen, then?

Hentenza said:

Thanks for clarifying. I’m not an expert on international law but from what I read so far the power to stop Trump rests with the US courts and congress so not sure if even an international law exists addressing these actions. Please correct me if am wrong.

Click to expand...

I also have no expertise in law so this is coming from my layman's understanding.

I believe international law is against these types of actions, but only in areas the US has not signed on or agreed to.

Hentenza said:

Trump is using article 2 of the constitution to claim that he has authority to use the military against narco-traffickers. So is it a gray area? Not sure but it seems that if his interpretation of article 2 is correct then he can continue but if a court rules that his interpretation is not correct then he would have to stop. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

I would agree with that.

The issue I have with Trumps actions are two-fold.

1) The legal authorization to kill enemy combatants that Bush and Obama used was later seen as faulty.

2) The designation of "Narco-terrorist" is seems completely made up specifically to bypass the law to allow for these strikes.

Taken together this use of force strikes me as very problematic. Most especially since it basis the entire premise on people who voluntarily take a substance and then suffer adverse effects. Imagine if we killed people for having the audacity to brew beer simply because someone who bought it might die of liver failure.

eleos1954 said:

Parents need to monitor what their kids are participating in and also block them from accessing certain sites

Click to expand...

I grew up gaming on PC, Atari, etc.. and still do game from time to time.

When he was younger, I used to game with my grandson all the time. He mainly played Fortnite but also Roblox some.

Was I monitoring him? Yes. Was I guiding him on chats, online places and online people to stay away from? Yes. Was I also having fun and bonding with him? Yes.

Even you don't like gaming, I promise you'll live through sitting with your little one through a few rounds of Roblox or Fortnite.

d taylor said:

It is not faith that is special, the important part of a persons faith is the object the faith is placed in.

The faith of a person placed into idols does not give eternal life. But if the same person was to direct his faith into Jesus he would at the very moment of belief in Jesus for Eternal Life, would receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Philippians 1:29 or Ephesians say nothing about God giving a special faith of the spirit, so a person can believe in Jesus.

Click to expand...

You're confusing the instrumental cause of salvation ("through faith," Eph. 2:8) with its efficient cause ("by grace," Eph. 2:8). The question is whether fallen man possesses the moral and spiritual capacity to direct faith toward Christ at all, given his hostility toward God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Saving faith is indeed qualitatively distinct from natural belief. The natural man can believe propositions, but he cannot receive the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). Faith in Christ does not arise from the old nature's rational faculties; it arises from the new life granted by the Spirit (John 6:44, 65).

Your comments on Phil. 1:29 and Eph. 2:8 ignores the syntax. In Phil. 1:29, τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ("to believe in Him") is the very thing "granted" (ἐχαρίσθη). Belief itself is the divine gift. Likewise, in Eph. 2:8, the neuter demonstrative τοῦτο ("this") refers to the entire preceding clause, "by grace you have been saved through faith." The whole reality of salvation through faith is of God, not of human origin.

d taylor said:

John 6;44 simply states that God draws people to Jesus. The verse does not say that the drawing is only for an elected group of people.

Click to expand...

It actually does. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father.

While it is true theologically that the one raised is the one who actually comes, what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual. It changes the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me." (v. 37)
"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (and the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)." (v. 44)

d taylor said:

The next verse states that
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
This verse also does not say that God is only teaching an elect group of people.

Click to expand...

Again, it actually does. To say otherwise misses both the syntax and theological force of διδακτοὶ θεοῦ ("taught by God"). Jesus is citing Isaiah 54:13, where "being taught by God" is a covenantal promise of divine renewal, parallel to Jeremiah 31:33-34, where God writes His law on their hearts so that "they shall all know Me." In context, it is not a general offer of instruction but a description of the effectual work of God upon His covenant people.

Grammatically, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ contains a genitive of agency with a substantivized predicate adjective. This construction consistently denotes persons passively affected by the action of the genitive noun. Compare ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in Romans 1:7 ("loved by God") and τοῖς ἁγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν in Acts 15:25 ("our beloved"), which describe an objective reality independent of response. The persons are loved; their reaction does not produce that love. Similarly, γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν in Matthew 11:11 ("those born of women") identifies those who have undergone birth, something wholly external to their will. The same pattern appears in θεόπνευστος ("God-breathed") in 2 Timothy 3:16, where the focus is on the divine origin of Scripture, not human participation.

In other words, this grammatical logic essentially conveys the same thing as a compound word: God-breathed, woman-born, God-loved, and God-taught. It is descriptive of something that has happened; it characterizes. Thus, διδακτοὶ θεοῦ specifically conveys the idea that those in view have received the instructional benefits of the teaching. It does not convey the idea of a teaching simply offered. See also compounds σητόβρωτα ("moth-eaten," Jas. 5:2), πατροπαράδοτου ("inherited from forefathers," 1 Pet. 1:18), and ποταμοφόρητον ("swept away by a flood," Rev. 12:15). In fact, Paul actually uses a compound form of the "God-taught" phrase in 1 Thess. 4:9: θεοδίδακτοι.

In every one of these cases, the modifying element marks the agent producing the effect.

In other words, "taught by God" describes not a universal opportunity for instruction, but a divine action that creates the very capacity to come to Christ. It's a metaphor for regeneration, being born again, and directly parallel to "draws" in the prior verse. The subsequent clause, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me," simply articulates the necessary consequences of that effectual act. Being taught by God is what ensures coming to the Son.

Dikaioumenoi said:

"The channel through which being born again is experienced" is not what I said. You're conflating "salvation" with "being born again." You did not address my question:

Where have I argued for "believing after salvation"?​

Your choice of terminology is problematic. The argument is not that "salvation" as a whole precedes faith. The argument is that regeneration (being born again), which is one element within the broader experience of salvation, logically precedes faith. Regeneration is the divine act of imparting new spiritual life to the sinner, and it is distinct from the full scope of salvation, which also includes justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.

σωτηρία ("salvation") is contextually very flexible. In most passages it refers to justification, final deliverance, or the full scope of God's saving work. Only in certain contexts (e.g., Eph. 2:5-8; Titus 3:5) is the term used in a way that is closely associated with regeneration, and even there it is not strictly synonymous. So your use of the term "salvation" as if it automatically equates to regeneration misrepresents both the term's semantic range and the argument of the OP.

So there is no contradiction. Regeneration is the causal root in which God imparts new life; faith is the effect of that imparted life. The two may be simultaneous in experience, yet they are logically ordered. Experientially, one experiences faith and salvation (justification, adoption, etc.) in time; logically, faith presupposes regeneration.

The passages you quoted don't address regeneration...

Eph. 1:13 does not narrate regeneration. The "sealing" is God's mark of ownership and guarantee of inheritance (v. 14), not the actual imparting of new life. Scripture elsewhere distinguishes the impartation of life (regeneration, e.g., Eph. 2:1-5; Titus 3:5) from the sealing/assurance that follows.

Regeneration is the root; the seal is the effect, confirmation, or mark.

Again, not the issue. We're discussing the relationship between regeneration and faith, not justification and faith. Romans 10:13 is a statement about justification and final salvation, not the technical moment of regeneration. Paul is addressing Jews and Gentiles responding to the gospel. The emphasis is on hearing, believing, calling on the Lord, and receiving salvation. The aorists describe the experiential sequence of response, not the ontological causality of spiritual life.

Same issue; you're missing the point. The problem is not the temporal sequence of "salvation" as a whole; your use of the term conflates multiple aspects of salvation. Biblically, salvation encompasses a logical sequence: election, calling, regeneration, conversion (faith and repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (Rom. 8:28-30). The question at hand is the ordering of regeneration and faith specifically, not "salvation" in general. Faith is an instrument; it is the channel through which (means/instrumentality) God's grace is received (Eph. 2:8), not the logical ground of regenerative grace itself. Presenting faith as preceding "salvation" obscures and misrepresents the argument of the OP. The point is that regeneration enables faith, leading to all the rest of salvation's benefits (justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.).

Eph. 1:13, Rom. 10:13-15, and 1 Cor. 1:21 describe the outward, experiential sequence of hearing, believing, and being sealed with the Spirit. There is no dispute about that. The problem is that these texts do not address regeneration at all, which is the topic under discussion. 1 John 5:1 is different: it makes a gnomic, logical claim about spiritual causation. Being born of God is presented there as the ontological prerequisite for believing in Christ, not a subsequent event.

So appealing to experiential sequences in these other texts cannot overturn the clear grammatical and theological statement there. 1 John 5:1, which does explicitly reference regeneration, does so in a way that presents it as the ontological prerequisite to faith.

Click to expand...

You are arguing for a reality that we do not experience. It is clear (or at least it should be) that receiving Jesus (believing in Him) is what gives us the right to become children of God (Jn 1:12) and that God giving birth to us is what makes us His offspring (Jn 1:13). And it is clear (or at least it should be clear) that God giving birth to us is what translates out of the kingdom of the devil into His kingdom (Jn 3:5). Metaphysical reasoning is not needed to understand this.

Michie said:

Because feminism is often misunderstood in conservative circles. Reading the article will clear up your questions.

Click to expand...

Well, until you posted to say that the F-word you meant was feminism, I didn't know I had any questions.