Has Alan turing written anything on higher level abstractions undermining turing completeness? How can I test if gnome is indeed turing complete? I don't want to be turing incomplete. My code will be less clean if my confidence is a bit lower knowning my computer can't do all computations. How can it be Turing complete if I can't minimize and my default calculator app looks like its from toy r us? Gnome devs if your out there can you make sure the linux kernel is still turing complete when I run Gnome on top? I'm scraping wikipedia for the church turing hypothesis right now but I'm not so good at math.
FVWM2 here. It comes, out of the box, with the ability to minimize windows (and maximize for that matter), no extensions needed. I also have a few custom "snaps" setup (if I'm interpreting what you mean by "snap" correctly). The snap is instant once activated.
FVWM2 is also nearly infinitely configurable, you can set it up to do just about anything you want. I can raise, and lower, windows using any window border and a mouse click. I can configure how many buttons I want in the title bars, and exactly what each does when activated. They can either do direct actions, or open menus containing further actions. Those actions can also call external programs for even more advanced functions.