Scratch

New glitch: when I double clicked your tools.sprite custom blocks in the pallet, BYOB froze up. It is still responding (I can minimize it, close it, etc.), but it is no longer functioning. Just so you know, it was the pigl block with nothing in it.

New question: After seeing your second tutorial (or atleast part of it) I decided I wanted to make a script that solved for exponents and reported the numbers a user entered in a list. But I came to an obstacle. Although it may not be the most efficient method for exponents, I decided I would use the method displayed in the tutorial (using ( (#) map () over () <- -> ) ), and since BYOB fills in the blanks in reporter blocks, I would create a variable thats value was the exponents in blank multiplication blocks (ex. exponent = 3 variable value = (  ( )*( ( )*( ) )   ) if you can visualize that). It occured to me however, that you can't use the (join [] []) string block for "the block" values. Does anyone know how I can accomplish this task without completely rewriting my script?

Last edited by shadow_7283 (2010-05-02 14:15:25)

Lucario621 wrote:

Should I replace the picture of Gobo on the first post with this new one?

Sure.  While you're editing you can take out "unofficial"! 

shadow_7283 wrote:

when I double clicked [PIGL] BYOB froze up.

Yeah, that's what happens when a recursive function never reaches its base case -- it keeps running forever, and if you have "Atomic" checked it never lets the scheduler run, so you can't stop-sign it.  If you're on a Windows machine you can hold down the ESC key and click the mouse to stop it.  (This is supposed to work on the Mac too BUT IT STILL DOESN'T, JENS!    )

shadow_7283 wrote:

create a variable thats value was the exponents in blank multiplication blocks (ex. exponent = 3 variable value = (  ( )*( ( )*( ) )   )

Well first of all here's the official correct way to use the TOOLS tools to write exponentiation by repeated multiplication:

It uses a block, CASCADE, that's not in the tutorial because it's not about lists.  Maybe /next/ tutorial. 

As for doing it the way you suggest, alas, as you noted, a problem with visual programming is that it's hard to write "introspective" programs -- ones that look inside of the text of programs.  In Logo the thing you're trying to do would be much easier.

We can build up a block that multiplies a number by itself a given number of times, but it won't look like what you want.  This is going to be a little messy, but I bet nXIII likes it.     As you're reading it, be alert for blocks that don't have grey borders around them where you'd expect it.  Those are reporters that report blocks, which is what you're trying to do:

And here's how you use it -- note no grey border around the exptblock call nor around the cube reporter:

shadow_7283 wrote:

New glitch: when I double clicked your tools.sprite custom blocks in the pallet, BYOB froze up. It is still responding (I can minimize it, close it, etc.), but it is no longer functioning. Just so you know, it was the pigl block with nothing in it.

That's called a low space error. Squeak runs out of memory and cannot respond to user input because a method was called synchronously from the caller, meaning that the caller is waiting for the method to finish evaluating and the method is stuck in an infinite loop. Or something like that....
______________________

Has anyone made a switch block? because as far as I can tell, it's impossib-- Oh wait, never mind. MUHUHAHAHA!
______________________

Does no one use the 'the script. Input names #1 < >' block? Because one would think that whoever used it would realize that when the user deletes an input name, it stays there when reported?!
I guess I'm the only OOP programmer among all you functional people....

MathWizz wrote:

I'm making a way of making instances without a clone block!

AHA! Except for MathWizz!
@MathWizz: are you talking about the block coded OOP in the tutorial?

Last edited by nXIII (2010-05-02 16:36:18)

Thanks for the explanation, Brian. I guess I was thinking about the problem the wrong way. I was just trying to find a use for all those new blocks I'm trying to learn. 

Also thanks for the escape tip, and nXIII for the plain english translation.   
I just realized what pigl does.

Oorhay igpay atinlay!

MathWizz wrote:

No, it stamps the instances on the screen.

Oh... well, that can be accomplished with a bit nasty flashiness in normal Scratch

bharvey wrote:

nXIII wrote:

Has anyone made a switch block? because as far as I can tell, it's impossib-- Oh wait, never mind. MUHUHAHAHA!

OK, what am I missing here?  It's possible to make multi-C-slot blocks, but not afaik with predicate slots on the arms.

You make it have command arguments that accept custom blocks that are a single case. For example:
switch (a)
   case (3)                    <---- this is another custom block
      do something
   case (foo)
      do something else
   case (bar)
      do something else besides doing something else
default                         <---- this is part of the outer block
   do the default thing

Last edited by nXIII (2010-05-02 20:53:44)

The trouble with the new lambda-Gobo is that, although the decoration looks more like a lambda, as attached to the rest of the figure it looks less like a new hairdo and more like a tiara or something.  In the old version, the backslash-oriented part was just an extension of a spike that Gobo already had.  This time the curvature changes abruptly.  We sorely need a real artist to attack this problem!

Last edited by bharvey (2010-05-03 01:33:42)

(Double posting)
How hard would it be to make a BYOB2jar? then we would be able to have the BYOB programs online.

nXIII wrote:

Does anybody know why the 'the script. Input names' block is so messed up? I mean, I'm calling it and getting scripts with input names I have deleted in the past! I am trying to do a bit of OOP but I can't get anywhere when my zero-argument methods are demanding two arguments!
(bharvey, any suggestions?)

Hi nXIII,,

Whoa, this took me a while to figure out, sorry for taking so long to respond. I did look at that totally awesome project called "Squeak-OOP" and we'll post a version that should fix some, if not all, of the probems you've been describing. Did I mention that you're really pushing the envelope for BYOB?! I'm shocked at the complexity and brilliance of the projects I'm seeing in BYOB from you gang! This is much more than we ever expected. I mean, how cool is this: You guys are actually experimenting with a Smalltalk virtual machine done in - BYOB - (?!) Wow! Unbelievable! Can we hire you (only half-kidding!).

We'll announce it when the version with the fixes gets posted (it should be 005). As far as I can tell there are two sets of problems occurring in dispatch-method based OOP projects:

1) "zombie" variables

if you first create a variable and then delete it again, some variable setter blocks still "know" to the deleted variable, even if their drop-down-menus are set to a different one. Then if you save the project, the deleted variables suddenly reappear, Does that just about describe it right?

Here's a kludgy workaround for this that you can try:

After you delete a variable click on every variable setter block's drop-down menu and again choose the variable you want it to manipulate, even if the correct one is already shown. I'll try to come up with something automatic for this workaround in one of the next versions.

2) input number mismatches

currently, if the number of actual arguments don't exactly match the number of defined formal parameters, BYOB will raise an error. I changed this for the upcoming version. Then you will be able to pass fewer inputs than are defined without getting an exception. This should solve most of the problems in that über-awesome Squeak-OOP project I've been examining from you guys.

markyparky56 wrote:

Did anyone see this?

Yeah!  See #303.

Jens wrote:

nXIII wrote:

Does anybody know why the 'the script. Input names' block is so messed up? I mean, I'm calling it and getting scripts with input names I have deleted in the past! I am trying to do a bit of OOP but I can't get anywhere when my zero-argument methods are demanding two arguments!
(bharvey, any suggestions?)

Hi nXIII,,

Whoa, this took me a while to figure out, sorry for taking so long to respond. I did look at that totally awesome project called "Squeak-OOP" and we'll post a version that should fix some, if not all, of the probems you've been describing. Did I mention that you're really pushing the envelope for BYOB?! I'm shocked at the complexity and brilliance of the projects I'm seeing in BYOB from you gang! This is much more than we ever expected. I mean, how cool is this: You guys are actually experimenting with a Smalltalk virtual machine done in - BYOB - (?!) Wow! Unbelievable! Can we hire you (only half-kidding!).

We'll announce it when the version with the fixes gets posted (it should be 005). As far as I can tell there are two sets of problems occurring in dispatch-method based OOP projects:

1) "zombie" variables

if you first create a variable and then delete it again, some variable setter blocks still "know" to the deleted variable, even if their drop-down-menus are set to a different one. Then if you save the project, the deleted variables suddenly reappear, Does that just about describe it right?

Here's a kludgy workaround for this that you can try:

After you delete a variable click on every variable setter block's drop-down menu and again choose the variable you want it to manipulate, even if the correct one is already shown. I'll try to come up with something automatic for this workaround in one of the next versions.

2) input number mismatches

currently, if the number of actual arguments don't exactly match the number of defined formal parameters, BYOB will raise an error. I changed this for the upcoming version. Then you will be able to pass fewer inputs than are defined without getting an exception. This should solve most of the problems in that über-awesome Squeak-OOP project I've been examining from you guys.

While searching for a different glitch to take a picture of, I got this:

Is that supposed to happen?

Last edited by nXIII (2010-05-03 15:28:41)