flexible

I insisted on being flexible, discarding what was slowing us down, and adopting what was good.

Supplying people with free snackies and flexible hours without giving them freedom won't make them work harder, it'll just give them a sense of entitlement.

It's a big reason why it's been able to become so successful, so widespread, so flexible, and so powerful so quickly.

Code with functors or monoids or traversables is easier to write than more concrete code and yet still flexible enough for many useful tasks.

Scala is unabashedly written to be a flexible language.

The web itself is an open and flexible platform, but increasingly people are spending their time in a few centralized and controlled parts of it.

Anyone who has worked in enough office environments for a while will recognize that the "best" environment is a flexible one.

The JVM actually does not surprise anyone who's been working with it for a while: it is downright the most performant, flexible and awesome runtime environment ever developed.

"The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning.

Ok seems to me that a lot of people are missing the point entirely here... <insert zzzzzoooooooommmmmmm flying hand over the head motion here>Microsoft has always worked hard to make Windows as flexible as possible, hardware wise, functionality, etc.

For people with flexible schedules it ends up being a great fit, but for me, it was hard to fit into my schedule and I ended up with few opportunities to participate in the 'fun stuff', so I ended up giving my accounts and ships away to other people who would actively use them.

We got that reputation by doing some concrete things differently than our competitors: we staffed an appropriate number of CSRs, trained them to be nice to customers, did a lot of gratuitous tech support for basic computer problems, and were flexible about resolving billing disputes.

Currently it looks like: for [1,2,3].each |i| { /* a closure */ } Where eventually it might look something like: for i in [1,2,3] { /* just a regular block */ } I'm actually surprised that the author praises the "freedom and flexibility" of our old `for` loops... the reason for making this switch at all is because we found our old semantics to be neither sufficiently composable nor sufficiently flexible!