Scratch

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 14:11:58

PLEASE make a version of scratch 2.0 in java, that's like my fav prog language. Anyone else with me?

scimonster · 2012-03-10 14:17:04

Why? Isn't making one version enough work?

trinary · 2012-03-10 15:27:52

Why would you want this?

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 17:22:46

scimonster wrote:
Why? Isn't making one version enough work?

Which is why I question them remaking scratch COMPLETELY in flash. java was just fine.

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 17:24:14

trinary wrote:
Why would you want this?

Java is a fully fledged programming language who has spanned years in existence. Actionscript, and flash on the other hand, not so much.

Borrego6165 · 2012-03-10 18:03:27

if i'm being honest, JAVA was slow, couldn't handle large sprites (bigger than 480X360) and had numerous other problems. Plus flash can be played in full screen, and it's not like you need to know flash to use it, if you did and you were only capable of using JAVA than that's understandable, but you don't have to understand anything with flash, other than that it plays projects online.

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 18:21:01

Borrego6165 wrote:
if i'm being honest, JAVA was slow, couldn't handle large sprites (bigger than 480X360) and had numerous other problems. Plus flash can be played in full screen, and it's not like you need to know flash to use it, if you did and you were only capable of using JAVA than that's understandable, but you don't have to understand anything with flash, other than that it plays projects online.

JAVA has upgraded since then, is more secure, and has a WAY better underlying base than flash does. I consider flash to be somewhat sloppy, and would much rather stick with JAVA, as I am much with the JAVA community on this side. JAVA has the capability to play in full screen, they just haven't implemented it. And instead of applets, they could use servlets instead, to provide a much better performance experience.

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 18:22:39

Borrego6165 wrote:
if i'm being honest, JAVA was slow, couldn't handle large sprites (bigger than 480X360) and had numerous other problems. Plus flash can be played in full screen, and it's not like you need to know flash to use it, if you did and you were only capable of using JAVA than that's understandable, but you don't have to understand anything with flash, other than that it plays projects online.

all you have to do is make a fullscreensrc.zip and implement the JFrame as "full screen"

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-10 18:24:46

Code:

GraphicsEnvironment.getLocalGraphicsEnvironment().getDefaultScreenDevice().setFullScreenWindow(<your_application

legoscratch · 2012-03-11 08:24:28

Why would we want this? There's already a ton of work that's been done on flash. Really, the Java player was buggy and slow; imagine buggy and slow for the whole entire program!
There are already tons of projects that work in the Flash Player and not Java - I don't think we should look back now. Just my opinion.

rdococ · 2012-03-11 08:34:36

legoscratch wrote:
Why would we want this? There's already a ton of work that's been done on flash. Really, the Java player was buggy and slow; imagine buggy and slow for the whole entire program!
There are already tons of projects that work in the Flash Player and not Java - I don't think we should look back now. Just my opinion.

I agree, kind of.

Why don't we just make it in Javascript?

- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/10
- Javascript is slow, untested, but you can't really hack it. It is also a bit easier to learn. 9/10

Last edited by rdococ (2012-03-11 08:35:52)

funelephant · 2012-03-11 08:39:25

SOLUTION: If you want it so bad, make it yourself! It would be hard, but I don't think the scratch team is going to write it AGAIN

Pecola1 · 2012-03-11 08:52:19

funelephant wrote:
SOLUTION: If you want it so bad, make it yourself! It would be hard, but I don't think the scratch team is going to write it AGAIN

+1
BTW ppl like flash better than java? Strange... I thought ppl were crazy about java XD

(I mean... Minecraft was written in java XD)

ZeroLuck · 2012-03-11 09:03:52

rdococ wrote:
- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/109/10

Java (6 and 7) is much faster than Flash.
The only thing is, that the JavaPlayer was not written to be fast.
(If you decompile it, you would see that it uses Logo-script files. It doesn't run the code directly)

scimonster · 2012-03-11 10:07:34

rdococ wrote:
legoscratch wrote:
Why would we want this? There's already a ton of work that's been done on flash. Really, the Java player was buggy and slow; imagine buggy and slow for the whole entire program!
There are already tons of projects that work in the Flash Player and not Java - I don't think we should look back now. Just my opinion.
I agree, kind of.

Why don't we just make it in Javascript?

- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/10
- Javascript is slow, untested, but you can't really hack it. It is also a bit easier to learn. 9/10

I'd love them to remake it in JS eventually. 8D

TRocket · 2012-03-11 10:09:52

ZeroLuck wrote:
rdococ wrote:
- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/109/10
Java (6 and 7) is much faster than Flash.
The only thing is, that the JavaPlayer was not written to be fast.
(If you decompile it, you would see that it uses Logo-script files. It doesn't run the code directly)

meowmeow55 · 2012-03-11 11:39:57

scimonster wrote:
rdococ wrote:
legoscratch wrote:
Why would we want this? There's already a ton of work that's been done on flash. Really, the Java player was buggy and slow; imagine buggy and slow for the whole entire program!
There are already tons of projects that work in the Flash Player and not Java - I don't think we should look back now. Just my opinion.
I agree, kind of.

Why don't we just make it in Javascript?

- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/10
- Javascript is slow, untested, but you can't really hack it. It is also a bit easier to learn. 9/10
I'd love them to remake it in JS eventually. 8D

*cough*

slinger · 2012-03-11 12:30:09

I would agree with you but, you must be quite new here, version 2.0 hasn't come out for a long time, to remake it in java would take much longer and well, yeah...
Erm, who said flash was faster than java...
Java = run on a virtual machine
Flash = run on a virtual machine
both are slow but, from the research I've done; java prevails.

XenoK_Studios · 2012-03-11 12:39:19

meowmeow55 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
rdococ wrote:

I agree, kind of.

Why don't we just make it in Javascript?

- Java is slow, and hard to learn but secure. 8/10
- Flash is fast, more projects work on it, but less secure. 9/10
- Javascript is slow, untested, but you can't really hack it. It is also a bit easier to learn. 9/10
I'd love them to remake it in JS eventually. 8D
*cough*

is that really in js? awesome!

muppetds · 2012-03-11 14:00:27

i plan to make one - with custom block options and some more features when i finish learning java

scimonster · 2012-03-11 14:08:22

XenoK_Studios wrote:
meowmeow55 wrote:
scimonster wrote:

I'd love them to remake it in JS eventually. 8D
*cough*
is that really in js? awesome!

Yep. Jens has been hard at work recoding BYOB into JS, and it's renamed Snap! BTW.

PencilFactory · 2012-03-11 22:04:19

Yes, I agree because one of my projects only works in java.

veggieman001 · 2012-03-11 23:31:02

Scratch has never been in Java.

ZeroLuck · 2012-03-12 06:20:33

muppetds wrote:
i plan to make one - with custom block options and some more features when i finish learning java

I worked some days at a "Java Scratch" too.
But I never finished it because I continued with devolping my OS.

Last edited by ZeroLuck (2012-03-12 06:22:22)

TRocket · 2012-03-12 06:29:31

ZeroLuck wrote:
muppetds wrote:
i plan to make one - with custom block options and some more features when i finish learning java
I worked some days at a "Java Scratch" too.
But I never finished it because I continued with devolping my OS.

i have been thinking about doing this as well, so maybe we should work together on this

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2012-03-10 14:11:58

Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#2 2012-03-10 14:17:04

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#3 2012-03-10 15:27:52

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#4 2012-03-10 17:22:46

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

scimonster wrote:

#5 2012-03-10 17:24:14

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

trinary wrote:

#6 2012-03-10 18:03:27

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#7 2012-03-10 18:21:01

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

Borrego6165 wrote:

#8 2012-03-10 18:22:39

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

Borrego6165 wrote:

#9 2012-03-10 18:24:46

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

Code:

#10 2012-03-11 08:24:28

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#11 2012-03-11 08:34:36

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

legoscratch wrote:

#12 2012-03-11 08:39:25

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#13 2012-03-11 08:52:19

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

funelephant wrote:

#14 2012-03-11 09:03:52

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

rdococ wrote:

#15 2012-03-11 10:07:34

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

rdococ wrote:

legoscratch wrote:

#16 2012-03-11 10:09:52

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

ZeroLuck wrote:

rdococ wrote:

#17 2012-03-11 11:39:57

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

scimonster wrote:

rdococ wrote:

legoscratch wrote:

#18 2012-03-11 12:30:09

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#19 2012-03-11 12:39:19

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

meowmeow55 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

rdococ wrote:

#20 2012-03-11 14:00:27

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#21 2012-03-11 14:08:22

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

XenoK_Studios wrote:

meowmeow55 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#22 2012-03-11 22:04:19

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#23 2012-03-11 23:31:02

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

#24 2012-03-12 06:20:33

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

muppetds wrote:

#25 2012-03-12 06:29:31

Re: Scratch 2.0 in JAVA

ZeroLuck wrote:

muppetds wrote:

Board footer