Scratch

scimonster · 2011-06-20 07:14:58

I'm redoing the implied multiplication code.
I've also edited my original code, to make it easier.
I added a list, "what is". It holds what each item of "Engine" is: n(umber), o(perator), l(eft parenthesis) r(ight parenthesis), c(onstant).

Code:

delete (all^) of [temps^]
add (0) to [temps^]
repeat (length of [Engine^])
  if <<<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [l]> and <not <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [o]>>> or <<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [c]> and <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [c]>>>
    insert [*] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [Engine^]
    insert [o] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]
  replace item (1) of [temps^] with ((item (1) of [temps^] + (1))

If you didn't get that, what it does is:
If the value before a "(" is not a number, it puts an asterisk (*) there, and an "o"(perator) in the list of what they are. Also, if two constants are next to each other, it will do the same thing.
Right?

EDIT: Wow, 11th page!

Last edited by scimonster (2011-06-20 08:25:23)

scimonster · 2011-06-20 07:55:11

I forgot, are we including the "rand (x, y)" function?

VanillaCreme · 2011-06-20 08:47:53

Would you like me to advertise? what exactly are you making?

Last edited by VanillaCreme (2011-06-20 08:49:03)

scimonster · 2011-06-20 08:51:07

VanillaCreme wrote:
Would you like me to advertise? what exactly are you making?

You can advertise. big_smile
We're making a calculation engine right now.

I have to go out, it will be a little while 'til it's finished.

VanillaCreme · 2011-06-20 08:58:02

It Sounds Cool! Thanks, smile

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-20 10:56:00

bbbeb wrote:
Wow.

If i see your project in the future, I'm flagging it for theft of our code.

Sorry.

scimonster wrote:
Me too!

Good luck with that:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:
You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work

And to be honest, kind of surprised by that reaction from a fellow scratch-er.

hpotter134 · 2011-06-20 11:31:36

LiquidMetal wrote:
bbbeb wrote:
Wow.

If i see your project in the future, I'm flagging it for theft of our code.

Sorry.
scimonster wrote:
Me too!
Good luck with that:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:
You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work
And to be honest, kind of surprised by that reaction from a fellow scratch-er.

Alright, settle down everybody. LiquidMetal, go ahead and remix. Just please don't call it Xenon. We'll see who makes a better calculator in the end. tongue

hpotter134 · 2011-06-20 12:09:14

On a different note, guys, are we stubbornly determined to make it 0 sprites one script? Because the way things are going, this is going to be m a s s i v e and s l o w with one script. Can't we use scratch's broadcast system to our advantage? We can use the broadcasts to make a Scratchified version of case statements, eliminating the need for a massive if else monster.

I still need to think all of that out, but my main question is whether or not I'm allowed to make it multi-script?

VanillaCreme · 2011-06-20 13:03:47

See, This is the problem When this is made everybody is going to steal it or make it their own some how... Seriously we need to be really discreet in making this.. Im Not saying people can't remix or whatever but someone might make it before us And they wouldn't really have to do anything at all because its all right here.. Plus We want to make it a surprise Right? tongue

bbbeb · 2011-06-20 13:05:53

LiquidMetal wrote:
bbbeb wrote:
Wow.

If i see your project in the future, I'm flagging it for theft of our code.

Sorry.
scimonster wrote:
Me too!
Good luck with that:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:
You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work
And to be honest, kind of surprised by that reaction from a fellow scratch-er.

To steal our code and take credit is still prohibited by Scratch Moderators. I can flag it with others and tell why and you'll lose the project.

And also, the creative commons says to adapt the work. Still doesn't mean "its mine because i changed just a little".

bbbeb · 2011-06-20 13:07:29

scimonster wrote:
I'm redoing the implied multiplication code.
I've also edited my original code, to make it easier.
I added a list, "what is". It holds what each item of "Engine" is: n(umber), o(perator), l(eft parenthesis) r(ight parenthesis), c(onstant).
Code:
delete (all^) of [temps^]
add (0) to [temps^]
repeat (length of [Engine^])
  if <<<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [l]> and <not <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [o]>>> or <<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [c]> and <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [c]>>>
    insert [*] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [Engine^]
    insert [o] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]
  replace item (1) of [temps^] with ((item (1) of [temps^] + (1))
If you didn't get that, what it does is:
If the value before a "(" is not a number, it puts an asterisk (*) there, and an "o"(perator) in the list of what they are. Also, if two constants are next to each other, it will do the same thing.
Right?

EDIT: Wow, 11th page!

What if its 2(4)
or (4)2
or (6)(8)?

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-20 14:27:40

VanillaCreme wrote:
See, This is the problem When this is made everybody is going to steal it or make it their own some how... Seriously we need to be really discreet in making this.. Im Not saying people can't remix or whatever but someone might make it before us And they wouldn't really have to do anything at all because its all right here.. Plus We want to make it a surprise Right?

I'm not making it my own, It is bbbeb's misunderstanding because of a single word. When I posted I saw room for misunderstanding, but I didn't expect it to go this far... ( and I couldn't change it because I'm using a new account )

bbbeb wrote:
To steal our code and take credit is still prohibited by Scratch Moderators. I can flag it with others and tell why and you'll lose the project.

I was planning to give all the credit required. In my project notes I have a link to the list sorting thing and It said I took this script and added some, and all the other scripts are my own personal work. If by saying steal you thought I was planning to take all the credit, you were wrong. I'm sorry if i confused you.

bbbeb wrote:
And also, the creative commons says to adapt the work. Still doesn't mean "its mine because i changed just a little".

I didn't "change just a little," I spent hours and hours of work on this!

----------------------------------------

For my version, I'm going to change the name, I don't know what to yet. If you are going to bother me about "stealing your script," Then I'll delete the humungous and impossible to work with single script and start over from scratch! It would probably make the project better. I had the idea to make this sort of project a long time ago, I just never got around to it, because I was afraid it would take to long. When I saw that some experienced scratchers thought it was possible, I decided to try it. If I delete that script and start over, and even if i don't, are you still going to flag my project for a false reason, based on a complete misunderstanding? The idea of a calculator was certainly not created on this thread....

Sorry if I'm being rude here, but I'm getting really annoyed. If you want me to redo that script, I'll do it, just say so here. I've only spent 10+ hours on it so far...

Truce?

scimonster · 2011-06-20 14:28:30

hpotter134 wrote:
On a different note, guys, are we stubbornly determined to make it 0 sprites one script? Because the way things are going, this is going to be m a s s i v e and s l o w with one script. Can't we use scratch's broadcast system to our advantage? We can use the broadcasts to make a Scratchified version of case statements, eliminating the need for a massive if else monster.

I still need to think all of that out, but my main question is whether or not I'm allowed to make it multi-script?

Well, in development, we can use broadcasts, but the entire setup zooms through all those loops very quickly!

bbbeb wrote:
scimonster wrote:
I'm redoing the implied multiplication code.
I've also edited my original code, to make it easier.
I added a list, "what is". It holds what each item of "Engine" is: n(umber), o(perator), l(eft parenthesis) r(ight parenthesis), c(onstant).
Code:
delete (all^) of [temps^]
add (0) to [temps^]
repeat (length of [Engine^])
  if <<<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [l]> and <not <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [o]>>> or <<(item ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]) = [c]> and <(item (item (1) of [temps^]) of [what is^]) = [c]>>>
    insert [*] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [Engine^]
    insert [o] at ((item (1) of [temps^]) + (1)) of [what is^]
  replace item (1) of [temps^] with ((item (1) of [temps^] + (1))
If you didn't get that, what it does is:
If the value before a "(" is not a number, it puts an asterisk (*) there, and an "o"(perator) in the list of what they are. Also, if two constants are next to each other, it will do the same thing.
Right?

EDIT: Wow, 11th page!
What if its 2(4) works
or (4)2 have too work on that...
or (6)(8)? [color=red]puts a * at the start.

bbbeb · 2011-06-20 14:29:40

LiquidMetal wrote:
VanillaCreme wrote:
See, This is the problem When this is made everybody is going to steal it or make it their own some how... Seriously we need to be really discreet in making this.. Im Not saying people can't remix or whatever but someone might make it before us And they wouldn't really have to do anything at all because its all right here.. Plus We want to make it a surprise Right?
I'm not making it my own, It is bbbeb's misunderstanding because of a single word. When I posted I saw room for misunderstanding, but I didn't expect it to go this far... ( and I couldn't change it because I'm using a new account )

bbbeb wrote:
To steal our code and take credit is still prohibited by Scratch Moderators. I can flag it with others and tell why and you'll lose the project.
I was planning to give all the credit required. In my project notes I have a link to the list sorting thing and It said I took this script and added some, and all the other scripts are my own personal work. If by saying steal you thought I was planning to take all the credit, you were wrong. I'm sorry if i confused you.

bbbeb wrote:
And also, the creative commons says to adapt the work. Still doesn't mean "its mine because i changed just a little".
I didn't "change just a little," I spent hours and hours of work on this!

----------------------------------------

For my version, I'm going to change the name, I don't know what to yet. If you are going to bother me about "stealing your script," Then I'll delete the humungous and impossible to work with single script and start over from scratch! It would probably make the project better. I had the idea to make this sort of project a long time ago, I just never got around to it, because I was afraid it would take to long. When I saw that some experienced scratchers thought it was possible, I decided to try it. If I delete that script and start over, and even if i don't, are you still going to flag my project for a false reason, based on a complete misunderstanding? The idea of a calculator was certainly not created on this thread....

Sorry if I'm being rude here, but I'm getting really annoyed. If you want me to redo that script, I'll do it, just say so here. I've only spent 10+ hours on it so far...

Truce?

Why not get Hardmath to get you on the team, you do have valuable things you can do...
...better than What I've got around to.

Also, Truce. big_smile

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-20 14:50:43

bbbeb wrote:
Why not get Hardmath to get you on the team, you do have valuable things you can do...
...better than What I've got around to.

You are just trying to save yourself 10 hours of work =p. And as someone reminded me earlier:

Hardmath123 wrote:
Sorry, but we are currently not accepting new members . We may need some members later though, so keep checking this space!

sad

bbbeb wrote:
Also, Truce.

Thanks wink

bbbeb · 2011-06-20 16:01:59

LiquidMetal wrote:
bbbeb wrote:
Why not get Hardmath to get you on the team, you do have valuable things you can do...
...better than What I've got around to.
You are just trying to save yourself 10 hours of work =p. And as someone reminded me earlier:
Hardmath123 wrote:
Sorry, but we are currently not accepting new members . We may need some members later though, so keep checking this space!

bbbeb wrote:
Also, Truce.
Thanks

Nah.

I can do it if i put time in it. XD

VanillaCreme · 2011-06-20 16:38:20

Can i Be added As a Avertiser? smile

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-20 16:47:25

Hardmath can I join as a programmer? I spent 10+ hours, on this, so I have some nice scripts, but they might not be useful depending on how you plan to do it. If not I'll make a spin-off.

bbbeb wrote:
I can do it if I put time in it. XD

K, gl :p.

-Liquid

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-20 17:02:27

I made some pictures, but, I can't use the image tags. Until then, have the links.

I put your picture in gimp and blurred where it blurs, let me know what you think.

http://imgur.com/f6A7P.png

I made a cool picture for sig advertisers, you can use it if you'd like:

http://i.imgur.com/j0jzu.png

LiquidMetal · 2011-06-21 10:31:00

Update of the bottom picture to match the forum backround:

http://i.imgur.com/Z1eyj.png

Hardmath123 · 2011-06-21 11:47:19

VanillaCreme wrote:
Can i Be added As a Avertiser?

Sure wink

VanillaCreme · 2011-06-21 11:51:51

Hardmath123 wrote:
VanillaCreme wrote:
Can i Be added As a Avertiser?
Sure

Thanks, smile

applejack · 2011-06-21 12:56:57

hpotter134: The sig you have has been updated, and now it's edges are smoothed, I would recommend getting the new version smile

hpotter134 · 2011-06-22 00:35:27

applejack wrote:
hpotter134: The sig you have has been updated, and now it's edges are smoothed, I would recommend getting the new version

Alright, thanks for the heads-up smile

Is that better?

Last edited by hpotter134 (2011-06-22 00:35:44)

Joeman592 · 2011-06-22 01:15:12

LiquidMetal wrote:
Update of the bottom picture to match the forum backround:
http://i.imgur.com/Z1eyj.png

cool image, did you make your own xenon block or did you use mine?

That aside, how far are you with completing it?

Scratch

archived forums

#251 2011-06-20 07:14:58

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

Code:

#252 2011-06-20 07:55:11

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#253 2011-06-20 08:47:53

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#254 2011-06-20 08:51:07

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

VanillaCreme wrote:

#255 2011-06-20 08:58:02

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#256 2011-06-20 10:56:00

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

bbbeb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:

#257 2011-06-20 11:31:36

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

LiquidMetal wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:

#258 2011-06-20 12:09:14

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#259 2011-06-20 13:03:47

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#260 2011-06-20 13:05:53

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

LiquidMetal wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ wrote:

#261 2011-06-20 13:07:29

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

scimonster wrote:

Code:

#262 2011-06-20 14:27:40

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

VanillaCreme wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

#263 2011-06-20 14:28:30

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

hpotter134 wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Code:

#264 2011-06-20 14:29:40

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

LiquidMetal wrote:

VanillaCreme wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

#265 2011-06-20 14:50:43

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

bbbeb wrote:

Hardmath123 wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

#266 2011-06-20 16:01:59

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

LiquidMetal wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

Hardmath123 wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

#267 2011-06-20 16:38:20

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#268 2011-06-20 16:47:25

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

bbbeb wrote:

#269 2011-06-20 17:02:27

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#270 2011-06-21 10:31:00

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

#271 2011-06-21 11:47:19

Re: Xenon Inc. Developers' Thread

VanillaCreme wrote:

#272 2011-06-21 11:51:51