Scratch

markyparky56 wrote:

nXIII wrote:

bharvey wrote:

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?

The first is more versatile. It can work with reporters.

Last edited by nXIII (2010-07-11 16:05:31)

Jakey22 wrote:

If you are really thinking about using this for college students and programers, you should be able to resize the stage, and run the maker's programms like regular windows/mac/linux programs.

Yeah, but it's also supposed to just be suited for normal scratchers too.

If you wan't to make normal applications for Windows/Mac/Linux, I would suggest trying this programming language I found in the 'Alternatives to Scratch' section in the Scratch Wiki, called Processing. It's definitely a step up from Scratch, but I like it...

nXIII wrote:

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

I see, what you really want is to program in Scheme!  Good choice.   

nXIII wrote:

bharvey wrote:

nXIII wrote:

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

I see, what you really want is to program in Scheme!  Good choice.   

Where can I get/use/something Scheme?

http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~scheme/

Oh, and don't forget the book: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ss-toc2.html

bharvey wrote:

Jens wrote:

Oh, and don't forget the book: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ss-toc2.html

Thanks, Jens, but you've forgotten to whom you're talking.  He should just read the real book!

Is that supposed to be a joke? They're different books.

Here's something I don't understand.
Even when using BYOB's atomic feature for repeats, I find that duplicating a script the number of times I want it to be repeated is still faster.
Why is that?

shadow_7283 wrote:

Here's something I don't understand.
Even when using BYOB's atomic feature for repeats, I find that duplicating a script the number of times I want it to be repeated is still faster.
Why is that?

Are you using the primitive repeat block, or the one in the tools package (with the # variable)?

shadow_7283 wrote:

Here's something I don't understand.
Even when using BYOB's atomic feature for repeats, I find that duplicating a script the number of times I want it to be repeated is still faster.
Why is that?

Do you have the latest version of BYOB?

MathWizz wrote:

Do you have the latest version of BYOB?

Ah, haven't heard from you in a while!  Happy 500th post. 

PS Nice logo in your sig.

I'm pretty sure that nXIII has got it right. BYOB needs to evaluate the REPEAT block every time it loops through it. So if you evaluate

   REPEAT 10
     MOVE 1

BYOB / Scratch goes through 20 blocks.

If instead you evaluate

   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1
   MOVE 1

it will be just 10 blocks to go through. In Scratch this won't matter at all, same as in BYOB if run non-atomic. However, when the atomic flag is marked in both cases, running at full throttle the second script outperforms the first one.

Last edited by Jens (2010-07-13 03:41:20)

MathWizz wrote:

shadow_7283 wrote:

Here's something I don't understand.
Even when using BYOB's atomic feature for repeats, I find that duplicating a script the number of times I want it to be repeated is still faster.
Why is that?

Do you have the latest version of BYOB?

I think so. Its hard to keep track of. XD
By the way, you might want to update your signature to this:

bharvey wrote:

2.99.029 mostly bugfixes.  One new feature: translucent dragging.

Translucent dragging? Better check this out...

Thats pretty cool!

Last edited by markyparky56 (2010-07-14 09:56:08)

Could the block-making window be resizeable? That would make it much easier to make blocks.