It&#x27;s tempting to call this &#x27;programming&#x27; or &#x27;code&#x27;, in order to link those concepts. This is true. <i>BUT</i><p>Consider the context of this kind of thing is different to the context in which we <i>usually</i> use code.<p>To explain:<p>It would be great if figures (e.g. in articles) came with code representing how they were calculated, such that they can be tweaked. In fact, I think actual programming source code should implement such a thing e.g. for constants. But this won&#x27;t be part of the &quot;real&quot; code - the values will remain implemented as constants. Hence &quot;code&quot; like this should be still considered <i>manual</i>, a working tool, as opposed to the nature of common code - which is non-manual in the end...