Citations:manipulexity

English citations of manipulexity

							1994 2001 2006 2008
ME «	15th c.	16th c.	17th c.	18th c.	19th c.	20th c.	21st c.

The ability of a set of tools, such as a programming language to support a complex solution to a complex problem.

Larry Wall (1994) “The Taming of the Camel”, in (Please provide the book title or journal name)‎^[1]

2001, Joel Meulenberg, “cygwin, perl, and python, which is the most popular scripting language”, in comp.databases.oracle.server‎^[2] (Usenet):

Languages like Perl and Python measure much higher on the manipulexity scale than the Korn Shell. You can do just about any kind of application development in Perl and Python. The shells are more for sysadmin work and relatively simple programs.

2006, Alastair Gale, “ping PC techies”, in alt.fan.cecil-adams‎^[3] (Usenet):

As Adam Turoff explained once, Perl has two subtle advantages: manipulexity and whipituptitude. It's very important to be able to solve the problem at hand simply and easily without languages and tools and syntax getting in your way. That's whipituptitude. Manipulexity is the ability to use simple tools and build a sufficiently complex solution to a complex problem.

2006, A Pagaltzis, “Module requirements”, in perl.qa‎^[4] (Usenet):

It seems to me that it is just particularly visible in Perl, because the high manipulexity and whipuptitude we so enjoy make it quite feasible to reinvent moderately complex wheels, so people do it.

2008, David Golden, “Should MANIFEST go in the repository?”, in perl.qa‎^[5] (Usenet):

Whipuptitude beats manipulexity for this class of problem, perhaps? I can hack up my own kit faster than I can learn and configure someone else's?