Scratch

More like 0.6 numbers and also it's been in development for about 2 years now (and probably will be for some more)

RedRocker227 wrote:

(And we're technically skipping infinite numbers, so both of you are wrong.  )

Andres-Vander wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

(And we're technically skipping infinite numbers, so both of you are wrong.  )

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Yeah, there's all the decimals in between. 0.4.0.3.2.1.1.7 

wolvesstar97 wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

The number difference depends on how big the changes are. Since 2.0 is online and is being completely rewritten from Scratch, you couldn't really go any bigger.

(And we're technically skipping infinite numbers, so both of you are wrong.  )

Ohkay..
WRONG
WE'RE SKIPPING .6 NUMBERS
.6 IS STILL EQUIVALENT TO .600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
IT ALL ADDS UP TO .6

I WIN THE GAME.

that's.... true....

TorbyFork234 wrote:

Mokat wrote:

wolvesstar97 wrote:

Ohkay..
WRONG
WE'RE SKIPPING .6 NUMBERS
.6 IS STILL EQUIVALENT TO .600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
IT ALL ADDS UP TO .6

I WIN THE GAME.

that's.... true....

and offtopic...

Not really, Sir Necropost. (should I adress you as that now? XD)

Version numbering doesn't work like the decimal system. Each version number indicates the significance of the update, as RedRocker pointed out. You can even have more incremental upgrades, such as 1.1.x. Or, you can even have version numbers that go past 9, such as having a version 2.11. Since Since Scratch 2.0 will be a complete rework of Scratch from the ground up, it makes sense to go up a whole version number to 2.0, since it's a much bigger change than say 1.3 -> 1.4 was.

tl;dr: Version numbers may look like standard decimal numbers, but they're not.

wolvesstar97 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

Version numbering doesn't work like the decimal system. Each version number indicates the significance of the update, as RedRocker pointed out. You can even have more incremental upgrades, such as 1.1.x. Or, you can even have version numbers that go past 9, such as having a version 2.11. Since Since Scratch 2.0 will be a complete rework of Scratch from the ground up, it makes sense to go up a whole version number to 2.0, since it's a much bigger change than say 1.3 -> 1.4 was.

tl;dr: Version numbers may look like standard decimal numbers, but they're not.

Got it. Thanks!

So, if Scratch recieved space alien contact and satelite control blocks, would it be 3.0?

lol. I guess 
Oh, and I heard that there might be a very simple sound editor in 2.0. Is this true?

wolvesstar97 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

Version numbering doesn't work like the decimal system. Each version number indicates the significance of the update, as RedRocker pointed out. You can even have more incremental upgrades, such as 1.1.x. Or, you can even have version numbers that go past 9, such as having a version 2.11. Since Since Scratch 2.0 will be a complete rework of Scratch from the ground up, it makes sense to go up a whole version number to 2.0, since it's a much bigger change than say 1.3 -> 1.4 was.

tl;dr: Version numbers may look like standard decimal numbers, but they're not.

Got it. Thanks!

So, if Scratch recieved space alien contact and satelite control blocks, would it be 3.0?

No, it'd still be 2.0, the highest it can go up is to the next integer.

MoreGamesNow wrote:

wolvesstar97 wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

The number difference depends on how big the changes are. Since 2.0 is online and is being completely rewritten from Scratch, you couldn't really go any bigger.

(And we're technically skipping infinite numbers, so both of you are wrong.  )

Ohkay..
WRONG
WE'RE SKIPPING .6 NUMBERS
.6 IS STILL EQUIVALENT TO .600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
IT ALL ADDS UP TO .6

I WIN THE GAME.

You can't skip a fraction of a number.  There are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.  You could build the case that you're skipping .6 integers, but there isn't such a thing as ".6 of a number".  If we're just skipping from 1.4 - 2, you could say that we're skipping "6" 10th increments or that we're skipping "a 60% of a whole number" or that "the range of the numbers we're skipping is 0.6", but you can't really say we're skipping 0.6 numbers.

(sorry for more off-topic stuff)

yeah but you can just keep adding on more zeros.
.60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Mokat wrote:

MoreGamesNow wrote:

wolvesstar97 wrote:

Ohkay..
WRONG
WE'RE SKIPPING .6 NUMBERS
.6 IS STILL EQUIVALENT TO .600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
IT ALL ADDS UP TO .6

I WIN THE GAME.

You can't skip a fraction of a number.  There are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.  You could build the case that you're skipping .6 integers, but there isn't such a thing as ".6 of a number".  If we're just skipping from 1.4 - 2, you could say that we're skipping "6" 10th increments or that we're skipping "a 60% of a whole number" or that "the range of the numbers we're skipping is 0.6", but you can't really say we're skipping 0.6 numbers.

(sorry for more off-topic stuff)

yeah but you can just keep adding on more zeros.
.60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

No... as Harakou explained above (and you should really read above posts) version 1.10 is not the same as version. 1.1

Put simply, the dots are not decimal points, but rather delimiters of integers that can go on infinitely until version 32443.435.435245.245425 
Just like IP numbers, in a way!