Scratch

Wow. A 4323 character answer to a 63 character question.

henley wrote:

This question is dumb, I know, but what is the difference between

[run [ ] >]

and

[launch [ ] >]

Run does the script inside of it and waits for its completion (the equivilant of broadcast and wait).

Launch starts the script inside of it but continues on without waiting for its completion (the equivilant of broadcast)

Try out these to scripts and see how they are different:

set x to 0
run
    the script
         repeat 100 times
              move 1 steps
say hello for 2 seconds

set x to 0
launch
    the script
         repeat 100 times
              move 1 steps
say hello for 2 seconds

And no, it isn't a dumb question, I had the same one.

Last edited by shadow_7283 (2010-07-09 12:17:53)

fullmoon wrote:

Wow, bharvey, that is some fascinating info in the post above! I have some thoughts about this, but I'm on break at work and using an iPod so typing is very difficult. I have to say, I am very intrigued by the hash-in-the-cloud idea.

You said that twice... It's probably just a mistake. I was posting a comment from an iPad and I accidentally hit the 'reply' button twice.

fullmoon wrote:

that is some fascinating info...I am very intrigued by the hash-in-the-cloud idea.

Do please remember that this was just a conversation we had, not any commitment on their part to anything!  Otherwise I'll feel guilty about having talked about it at all. 

Uh... Putting a list in an "Ask" command glitches... It just says "a ScratchListMorph('length: 0'511)" (replacing 0 with the length of the list).

shadow_7283 wrote:

Geez. Is there ANY HOPE for BYOB as a part of Scratch?

I think we're unlikely to see BYOB in its entirety, details and all.  There will be a lot of separate decisions, feature by feature, and we'll win some and lose some, most likely.

fullmoon wrote:

I once set up something similar when I was learning PHP.

Maybe you can get hired to reimplement it for Scratch 2.0 and then sneak in BYOB while you're at it. 

I know I keep posting this, but:

Cool idea.  They're talking about being able to store costumes and such in your account, but afaik not about downloading them from within a program (as opposed to from the UI).

who is going to write a browser in Scratch?

Not a full browser, but I can easily imagine wanting to scrape data from specific web pages.  I used to have a weather application on my previous cell phone that worked that way; they had an ad hoc language for writing HTML scrapers that would look for patterns and then save the temperature and whether it's raining or not.

Taneb wrote:

bharvey wrote:

Taneb wrote:

Uh... Putting a list in an "Ask" command glitches... It just says "a ScratchListMorph('length: 0'511)" (replacing 0 with the length of the list).

Thanks.  Noted.

Something similar happens when attempting to join The () Script blocks. I think trying to join to blocks should result in something like:
<move(6)steps>
<clear>

I like this idea. Somewhere earlier in the thread either bharvey or Jens described a possible list-to-script and script-to-list block that would take the blocks in a list and turn them into a script, and vice-versa.

bharvey wrote:

Not a full browser, but I can easily imagine wanting to scrape data from specific web pages.  I used to have a weather application on my previous cell phone that worked that way; they had an ad hoc language for writing HTML scrapers that would look for patterns and then save the temperature and whether it's raining or not.

Now we're getting into regex territory!

Jens wrote:

Taneb wrote:

bharvey wrote:

Thanks.  Noted.

Something similar happens when attempting to join The () Script blocks. I think trying to join to blocks should result in something like:
<move(6)steps>
<clear>[/blocks]

Whoa, I really like this idea, kudos!

I don't feel it's necessary with my number of arguments block.
*wink**wink*

Last edited by nXIII (2010-07-11 10:07:27)

markyparky56 wrote:

nXIII wrote:

Jens wrote:

Whoa, I really like this idea, kudos!

I don't feel it's necessary with my number of arguments block.
*wink**wink*

How would that block work? I don't really understand how that would fix the problem.

Once you have that block, you can make an infix->postfix converter and a postfix evaluator. It would take a list of the blocks, like

[move ( ) steps]
(( ) + ( ))
10
2

and would evaluate to:
[move ((10) + (2)) steps]

Last edited by nXIII (2010-07-11 12:16:24)

nXIII wrote:

It would take a list of the blocks, like

[move ( ) steps]
( ( ) + ( ) )
10
2

and would evaluate to:
[move ( (10) + (2) ) steps]

You're doing composition of functions; the O.P. wanted  a sequence of command blocks, which is different.

Last edited by bharvey (2010-07-11 15:32:02)

nXIII wrote:

bharvey wrote:

nXIII wrote:

It would take a list of the blocks, like

[move ( ) steps]
( ( ) + ( ) )
10
2

and would evaluate to:
[move ( (10) + (2) ) steps]

You're doing composition of functions; the O.P. wanted  a sequence of command blocks, which is different.

Nicer-looking, but equivalent.

ex:
[move ( ) steps]
10
[say ( )]
hi
= (when evaluated)
[move (10) steps]
[say (hi)]

vs.

[move (10) steps]
+
[say (hi)]
=
[move (10) steps]
[say (hi)]

But would you do that when you could do the equivilent?