Similar punishments are prescribed by the Old Testament, so not specific to Islam. Luckily religion was replaced as a moral and especially legal guideline in "the West" thanks to the Enlightenment and the French revolution.
> Similar punishments are prescribed by the Old Testament, so not specific to Islam.
Saying that is ignoring the hadiths and the sharia which describe in great details all the aspects of the life of a Muslim. There is no such thing with Christianity. There are no "christian tribunals" describe by the bible. Islam is closer to Judaism in that aspect. The bible doesn't cover in great details all the aspects of life of a christian. Furthermore the new testament is clearly a new covenant incompatible in many aspects with the first one.
The parallel (but in the opposite direction) with the New, potentially peacefuler(1) Testament replacing the older, bloodier one, in Islam is that the "newer" Quran verses (and in the same book specifically proclaimed to be "more true" even if "all are true") are actually those calling for Jihad and the "unbelievers" (original: Kafirs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir or mushriks, depending on the verse) to be "slayed" (and variants). The original term for the "newer verses are more true" principle (also known as abrogation) is:
> I regularly write static methods and test them with JUnit
Implementing mock objects which return "unexpected" results is impossible with static methods.
The standard 1 interface + 1 impl pattern in Java is just so that the Proxy.newProxyInstance can create a decorated or mocked object for testing.
So you can test the methods directly, but you can't write failure-inducing methods (like a connect exception throwing one) which test the methods which use it.
I wonder if they use some kind of (neural) language model for their translations. Using only a dictionary (as in the text) would be about 60 years behind the state of the art...
With no ill intent: I'm a bit skeptical about software quality / test coverage after finding a bug in the linear algebra implementation - I would not use it for production right now.
What do you mean by "pure"? Lack of loanwoards? Lack of any linguistic changes (e.g., sound, meaning) for existing words? Lack of any innovation, i.e. no new words for new concepts/objects? You could try to find some of these things in languages spoken by rather isolated groups. Yet I don't think one should call such a language "pure", implying some kind or (moral) superiority.
Compared to Classical Latin for instance, I can sort of intuitively see how a "purity" comparison might make some sense. The grammar is more rich and precise, suffixes and prefixes attached to primitive roots are more regular in terms of meaning. Meaning is very decoupled from word order, which allows much richer possibilities for rhyme and prose. If the restored pronunciation is anything to go by, then the pronunciation is very regular. Then again I'm not a linguist.
I would say it's like arguing whether Python is more "pure" than Perl. They're both Turing complete, they express very similar concepts but I'd wager most people would concede that Python feels "purer".
Isn't the 'purity' of Latin due more to the fact that we just don't have much data on the languages that informed it? I'm sure Latin borrowed heaps of words and grammar from other languages, but those languages are mostly lost to history now, since the people who spoke them didn't conquer and hold the Mediterranean for one thousand years.
Language purity isn't related to moral superiority; it's a matter of the degree to which a language follows it's own rules and patterns, mostly how much of the vocabulary is native, i.e. how much of the vocabulary is "borrowed" from other languages. Since English is the result of a "forced merger" between a Germanic language (Old English) and a Latin one (Middle French) we are already screwed in that respect.
