Scratch

jvvg wrote:

bullelk12 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

The whole point of Scratch is that it's easy. All of it is easy to figure out. No block or component can't be figured out by a beginner.
Making the code typeable would defeat the purpose, and if you want to see the Flash code, it uses a player that is simply a parser for the Scratch File Format.

Whoa whoa, that's like limiting what people can do on purpose. Someone could completely ignore that aspect of scratch and wouldn't be hindered a bit. But for those who do care, they would be able to as a learning experience.

If you really want Scratch to have no limits, then it would have to be able to read/write files, access network ports directly, random-access RAM, use DLL files, be able to integrate directly with OS APIs, etc.
A text-based language provides no additional value to Scratch, and only makes it more difficult for younger people to understand.
If you really want to learn a text-based language, use Python or something. Don't bother with Scratch.

I don't think they're saying that... I think they're talking about seeing the flash code.

bullelk12 wrote:

I mean, Imagine this. You place a "move (10) steps" block, you could take a look at what that looks like in text. Then you could an "if" block around the first block and see what that looks like and so on. Those are super small steps that wouldn't even be required.

Thing is, some languages might have it like this:
draw 'player' on screen at x5 y8
draw 'player' on screen at x15 y8

So there is no clear 'move 10 steps' function or whatever.

MrFlash67 wrote:

bullelk12 wrote:

I mean, Imagine this. You place a "move (10) steps" block, you could take a look at what that looks like in text. Then you could an "if" block around the first block and see what that looks like and so on. Those are super small steps that wouldn't even be required.

Thing is, some languages might have it like this:
draw 'player' on screen at x5 y8
draw 'player' on screen at x15 y8

So there is no clear 'move 10 steps' function or whatever.

But isn't it better that we have the option of seeing and programming in text-based programming, even if it's potentially confusing, rather than being forced to use block-based coding?

I think he means simply have an option to see the flash code that is uploaded to the site

You don't have to leave the Scratch community... You can learn more than one programming language....

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you can edit the source code and then share it on Modshare.tk...

taddl wrote:

bullelk12 wrote:

Finally someone who get it. Adding more doesn't have to equal harder, anyone who didn't want to wouldn't have to. It's their decision, and if some of you are worried about being bested because you don't want to take the time to learn the real deal, I'm sorry. But I really want this!

^
anyway, I support

^
In addition to everything above,
Nobody is forcing you to look at the text.  It won't subtract the value of Scratch; however, it helps.  I know Scratch well, but Flash is like a big blank space to me.  If we could see the Flash code, it would help us program in other languages a LOT better.  Scratch is the beginning coder's language, why not make it easier to move on?

I think it's a good idea: it allows complex projects and it users easily move on to other languages. However, the scratch team would probably say it might drive away beginners with a text-view. I think maybe there should be a menu called "advanced features" which one of the options should be "switch to code view", among other advanced things that new scratchers might not understand.

So this seems to be the main problem for some of you. The idea that adding a text code version would: defeat the purpose of scratch and may scare off new scratchers.

Both have been argued against both directions. Maybe a compromise is an order.

The text code editor would be somewhat hidden from view so that new scratchers won't  be so exposed to it.

The code generator would not be able to do EVERYTHING, it would still have to stick with what actual scratch blocks could do and nothing more.

In the code editor you could both view and edit the code you have. This would be used specifically as a higher level learning tool for those who want to move to the next level. Consider this middle ground between scratch blocks and text programming.

I think this is what we have so far, any thoughts?

bump

bullelk12 wrote:

I think this is what we have so far, any thoughts?

I think one of the other problems is that the code for a Scratch project would be so complicated if you went off what it actually executes, because it has a whole execution engine for each block whose specification is defined. Even if you look at the source for Scratch 1.4, you can see how complex it is; Scratch 2.0's is even more so, especially with things like the webcam blocks. The code it generated would be hard to understand, and that's coming from someone who knows several programming languages. 

veggieman001 wrote:

I think one of the other problems is that the code for a Scratch project would be so complicated if you went off what it actually executes, because it has a whole execution engine for each block whose specification is defined. Even if you look at the source for Scratch 1.4, you can see how complex it is; Scratch 2.0's is even more so, especially with things like the webcam blocks. The code it generated would be hard to understand, and that's coming from someone who knows several programming languages. 

I think the he means simple text-based scratch, not the actual flash code.

OverPowered wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

The code it generated would be hard to understand, and that's coming from someone who knows several programming languages. 

This is quite possibly true, but if one of Scratch's ultimate goals is to introduce Scratchers to more advanced programming, learning some of the simpler blocks' codes would be a huge step in that direction.

But with even a simple block, like, for example, Show, there would still be construction of a sprite object which could potentially be quite confusing to people with little experience with code and that type of OOP.

joefarebrother wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

I think one of the other problems is that the code for a Scratch project would be so complicated if you went off what it actually executes, because it has a whole execution engine for each block whose specification is defined. Even if you look at the source for Scratch 1.4, you can see how complex it is; Scratch 2.0's is even more so, especially with things like the webcam blocks. The code it generated would be hard to understand, and that's coming from someone who knows several programming languages. 

I think the he means simple text-based scratch, not the actual flash code.

No, this is asking for the actual code if you read the first post.