Scratch

I am just going to debate your points because I like arguing 
Comments are indicated by // and multilines are indicated by /* */

I think that they should have BOTH an online, and an offline version of Scratch. The online version, NOT meaning the online player.
/*I think that player might be integrated with the editor for both offline and online. Having something like this -> http://wonderfl.net/c/dYDF for scratch would be cool. The team said they would make an offline version which would likely be a lot like the online version. */

Note: The following information is only what I know from my head, it may be wrong

I am fine with the online version to be Flash. You can't download a program that is imbedded into a website. (unless they have a download link etc.) So Modifications made in the online version, would be useless.
/*You do realize that the player and the project files are completely different right? The current java player is embedded into the website much like a flash one would be. Taking this into consideration makes your argument invalid. */

I am NOT fine with the offline player being Flash. For all of the reasons that people above have stated.

iamback wrote:

Squeak is a lot better. Offline Flash is terrible, and Flash has lots of security holes. In particular, you would have to have "just the right version" of Flash. Not so in Java.

/*1. Haven't used squeak enough to make a good comparison with AS3 and I am pretty sure you don't have a lot of experience with both languages either. 2. Offline Flash behaves the same way as online flash. 3. Flash does have security holes sometimes, but they won't affect the player. 4. You do need a newer flash player but so do many popular sites such as youtube. */

ScratchReallyROCKS wrote:

FLASH HAS NO RIGHT CLICKING SUPPORT

//Ever right click on a flash app and see a little box? Yeah it recognizes right clicks.

meew0 wrote:

My internet connection = EPIC FAIL
I can't play ANY games online -> means I can't use Flash Scratch.

...
//And this is different in the java player?

Lucario621 wrote:

You guys act like the whole point of Scratch is to hack it, create Scratch Mods, and make your own blocks - when it's not.

The Scratch Source Code
/*I don't see why the flash version can't be modded. You would also be better off learning AS3 than squeak. */

coolstuff wrote:

Flash is WAY more common and widely programmed in than Squeak.

I guess if it is THAT wildly programmed, then we could settle to learn it.
//Squeak is not really widely used at all.

But, we already know squeak. And, I think that they could do what Jens did with BYOB, to make it run faster.
/* If all programmers thought like you we would all still be coding in assembly and programming would never progress. In with the new and out with the old. */

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I agree.
//I respectfully disagree

Last edited by archmage (2010-06-16 10:45:30)

Personally, I think Flash's reliability and ubiquity more than outweigh its proprietary status. Alternatives like Java or a Squeak plugin would be more open-source and in accordance with Scratch's principles, but that's not really too helpful if they don't run well. Without bashing the Java player, we've seen its share of problems arising from it, notably that an increasing number of projects simply won't load. I have no experience with the Squeak plugin but IMHO it would be downright foolish of the Scratch team to invest $200,000 in developing for a plugin that almost no one has. The other option that is being floated is a Javascript environment for Scratch 2.0. While that would certainly work on more browsers, it would also ensure that it would work differently on every browser, causing another compatibility problem (and alienating IE users).

Basically, as long as Scratch itself is open-source, I really don't care if its underlying environment is open-source or not; I'd rather have it be consistent and widespread.

16Skittles wrote:

@ archmage: henly was talking about flash, not squeak on the last one.

From what I could tell he was talking about favoring squeak/java over flash for the scratch player and editor. I was countering his criticism for flash in each one of my comments. Did you find any confusing points?

fullmoon wrote:

IMHO it would be downright foolish of the Scratch team to invest $200,000 in developing for a plugin that almost no one has

They invested millions of $$ in developing a Squeak application that everybody loves 

Maybe the question of which programming language Scratch is implemented in is irrelevant as long a the Scratch programming language manages to convince. I'd love to see other programming languages adopt a Scratch-like blocks-based d&d GUI, and I don't see any good reason why this could not be done for, say, Flash itself, Python, Scheme, or Java etc. So "the real romance" comes when Scratch breaks out of the "Microworld" confines into the great wide open.

Last edited by Jens (2010-06-16 13:01:43)

Billybob-Mario wrote:

archmage wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

@ archmage: henly was talking about flash, not squeak on the last one.

From what I could tell he was talking about favoring squeak/java over flash for the scratch player and editor. I was countering his criticism for flash in each one of my comments. Did you find any confusing points?

About your signature, the new version won't come out for a couple of years.

Then I won't do scratch for a couple of years. I'll change my sig to "pm my newgrounds or youtube account if v2 comes out" when I stop using the forums.

bigreader wrote:

Don't you have to buy Flash for several hundred dollars to open any Flash files?

Nope you can use this tool ->  http://www.flashdevelop.org

Last edited by archmage (2010-06-16 13:09:33)

coka wrote:

bigreader wrote:

Don't you have to buy Flash for several hundred dollars to open any Flash files?

No, all you need is the free flash player download to view flash files.  It is installed on most computers, but heres the link anyway.Adobe Flash Player

That only applies to compiled flash files. You need other tools for uncompilled flash files. Chances are, if you browse the net you already have the flash player.

Both = EPIC WIN!

I made my comments about your comments in color

archmage wrote:

I am just going to debate your points because I like arguing 
Comments are indicated by // and multilines are indicated by /* */

I think that they should have BOTH an online, and an offline version of Scratch. The online version, NOT meaning the online player.
/*I think that player might be integrated with the editor for both offline and online. Having something like this -> http://wonderfl.net/c/dYDF for scratch would be cool. The team said they would make an offline version which would likely be a lot like the online version. */

I know. That was my writing which was wrong. I should have written:

"I think that they will have BOTH an online, and offline version of Scratch."

Note: The following information is only what I know from my head, it may be wrong

I am fine with the online version to be Flash. You can't download a program that is imbedded into a website. (unless they have a download link etc.) So Modifications made in the online version, would be useless.
/*You do realize that the player and the project files are completely different right? The current java player is embedded into the website much like a flash one would be. Taking this into consideration makes your argument invalid. */

Modifications meaning: "hacking". Not "the inability to save the projects that you are working on" But I do admit that I was wrong about something in what I said that I don't know what it was yet...

I am NOT fine with the offline player being Flash. For all of the reasons that people above have stated.

iamback wrote:

Squeak is a lot better. Offline Flash is terrible, and Flash has lots of security holes. In particular, you would have to have "just the right version" of Flash. Not so in Java.

/*1. Haven't used squeak enough to make a good comparison with AS3 and I am pretty sure you don't have a lot of experience with both languages either. 2. Offline Flash behaves the same way as online flash. 3. Flash does have security holes sometimes, but they won't affect the player. 4. You do need a newer flash player but so do many popular sites such as youtube. */

(1.)Correct (2.)I wouldn't know, because I don't use flash. (3.)Oh. That clears a few more things up (4.)I am on your side for number four. I say, just deal with it, and install the new version.

ScratchReallyROCKS wrote:

FLASH HAS NO RIGHT CLICKING SUPPORT

//Ever right click on a flash app and see a little box? Yeah it recognizes right clicks.

I believe that the person quoted was talking about right clicking in the program to bring up something. (eg, an in-game menu, or something like a click, but does something else)

meew0 wrote:

My internet connection = EPIC FAIL
I can't play ANY games online -> means I can't use Flash Scratch.

...
//And this is different in the java player?

Oh yeah. I guess I didn't think of that.

Lucario621 wrote:

You guys act like the whole point of Scratch is to hack it, create Scratch Mods, and make your own blocks - when it's not.

The Scratch Source Code
/*I don't see why the flash version can't be modded. You would also be better off learning AS3 than squeak. */

This is where you started to go wrong. After the "..."  Was when I was arguing the points, that you should make a "Flash Scratch"

coolstuff wrote:

Flash is WAY more common and widely programmed in than Squeak.

I guess if it is THAT wildly programmed, then we could settle to learn it.
//Squeak is not really widely used at all.

See? I was talking about Flash. Which IS wildly programmed.

And while I'm writing about it, I would like to add to my post that the majority of us who use Squeak to manipulate Scratch probably learned it from hacking Scratch. Why couldn't we just do that again for Flash?

But, we already know squeak. And, I think that they could do what Jens did with BYOB, to make it run faster.
/* If all programmers thought like you we would all still be coding in assembly and programming would never progress. In with the new and out with the old. */

Ooh! A nasty comment! This hereby gives be permission to nastily reply to you. Okay so...

"If all programmers thought like YOU, then no one would understand each other."

EDIT: Oh yeah, and I agree.
//I respectfully disagree
Nice to know, because I didn't know that already.

I do agree with you, arguing is fun. Although this thread might get really "messy" really soon...

archmage wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

@ archmage: henly was talking about flash, not squeak on the last one.

From what I could tell he was talking about favoring squeak/java over flash for the scratch player and editor. I was countering his criticism for flash in each one of my comments. Did you find any confusing points?

I wasn't specifically voting for each side. I was making a list. And I am not one for change... So I guess to eliminate confusion, the creator of this thread should change me to:

henley: who half-heartedly supports

Or something like that.

Support. But a  flash scratch would be nice... 

if im right, then mods might have an advantage! it could be easier to make a scratch2exe converter in flash (mods, if this goes in advanced topics, move it).

I Totally Agree. It Would Mean That BYOB, Panther, Streak, Slash, Squirrel, And All The Other Mods Would Be Gone. (And Nobody Wants That To Happen.)

TheGameMaster1231 wrote:

I Totally Agree. It Would Mean That BYOB, Panther, Streak, Slash, Squirrel, And All The Other Mods Would Be Gone. (And Nobody Wants That To Happen.)

why would they be gone? they could still be there, they just wouldn't have updates from 2.0 .  it's not like the source code on their computer will erase itself.