Scratch

FunDude · 2010-08-12 17:57:06

I think the new viewer is way too confusing

FunDude · 2010-08-12 18:00:06

The sound in the viewer is messed up

iCode-747 · 2010-08-12 18:01:10

NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds? smile

fg123 · 2010-08-12 19:33:57

Agreed. smile

markyparky56 · 2010-08-14 15:56:15

iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?

I just hope they find a way for something like Mesh to work...

coolstuff · 2010-08-14 16:26:11

iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?

Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well smile

Harakou · 2010-08-14 17:16:40

coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well

Why Javascript, if I might ask? Compatibility with mobile browsers? No plugin required?

Lellowsfuzz · 2010-08-14 17:18:35

You guys, the offline verson will be in Squeak.

coolstuff · 2010-08-14 17:19:27

Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well
Why Javascript, if I might ask? Compatibility with mobile browsers? No plugin required?

Well, that, it's loads faster than Flash, but best of all it's a completely open technology. Free to develop in, and you're not supporting Adobe, and Apple loves it tongue . The Scratch-like environments I've seen being created with Javascript are... impressive!

Harakou · 2010-08-14 17:27:20

coolstuff wrote:
Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:

Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well
Why Javascript, if I might ask? Compatibility with mobile browsers? No plugin required?
Well, that, it's loads faster than Flash, but best of all it's a completely open technology. Free to develop in, and you're not supporting Adobe, and Apple loves it . The Scratch-like environments I've seen being created with Javascript are... impressive!

True, but isn't half the point of Flash Scratch so that the online and offline players use the same code? You can't exactly program a Windows/Mac application in Javascript.

Lellowsfuzz wrote:
You guys, the offline verson will be in Squeak.

No it wont. Both online and offline versions are being developed in Flash so that they use the same code and won't have the compatibility issues that the current Squeak/Java players have.

coolstuff · 2010-08-14 17:31:03

Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
Harakou wrote:

Why Javascript, if I might ask? Compatibility with mobile browsers? No plugin required?
Well, that, it's loads faster than Flash, but best of all it's a completely open technology. Free to develop in, and you're not supporting Adobe, and Apple loves it . The Scratch-like environments I've seen being created with Javascript are... impressive!
True, but isn't half the point of Flash Scratch so that the online and offline players use the same code? You can't exactly program a Windows/Mac application in Javascript.

You have a point there - but you can still open HTML files locally, so I guess a downloadable version could be plausible smile

Harakou · 2010-08-14 17:34:09

coolstuff wrote:
Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:

Well, that, it's loads faster than Flash, but best of all it's a completely open technology. Free to develop in, and you're not supporting Adobe, and Apple loves it . The Scratch-like environments I've seen being created with Javascript are... impressive!
True, but isn't half the point of Flash Scratch so that the online and offline players use the same code? You can't exactly program a Windows/Mac application in Javascript.
You have a point there - but you can still open HTML files locally, so I guess a downloadable version could be plausible

You could download the page to your computer I suppose. Still, I prefer having an actual full-size application as opposed to a player embedded in a webpage. That's just me though.

shadow_7283 · 2010-08-14 18:13:33

Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
Harakou wrote:

True, but isn't half the point of Flash Scratch so that the online and offline players use the same code? You can't exactly program a Windows/Mac application in Javascript.
You have a point there - but you can still open HTML files locally, so I guess a downloadable version could be plausible
You could download the page to your computer I suppose. Still, I prefer having an actual full-size application as opposed to a player embedded in a webpage. That's just me though.

Actually, I think that's most of us. big_smile

coolstuff · 2010-08-14 18:31:58

shadow_7283 wrote:
Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:

You have a point there - but you can still open HTML files locally, so I guess a downloadable version could be plausible
You could download the page to your computer I suppose. Still, I prefer having an actual full-size application as opposed to a player embedded in a webpage. That's just me though.
Actually, I think that's most of us.

Yeah, I suppose you do have a point there smile Still, I like JavaScript better.

iCode-747 · 2010-08-14 18:41:23

coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well

I don't have a computer that has less than 24 gb of RAM. tongue tongue tongue

lol

Still... Flash (or Javascript tongue ) is the way to go, trust me. wink

markyparky56 · 2010-08-16 13:59:43

iCode-747 wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well
I don't have a computer that has less than 24 gb of RAM.

Still... Flash (or Javascript ) is the way to go, trust me.

yikes 24Gig of RAM?

I have 1!!!

shadow_7283 · 2010-08-16 14:17:27

Lies...

ScratchReallyROCKS · 2010-08-16 14:23:23

Harakou wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well
Why Javascript, if I might ask? Compatibility with mobile browsers? No plugin required?

I made a thread about this about a month ago. Here it is

Harakou · 2010-08-17 14:04:37

iCode-747 wrote:
coolstuff wrote:
iCode-747 wrote:
NO.

Flash is the way to go. Period. I understand your argument, but aren't we all tired of slow Scratch and Java applet speeds?
Actually, Flash can get slow, too - try editing ultralarge projects in the new Flash player.

Honestly, I'd be a little happier with JavaScript, but Flash works just as well
I don't have a computer that has less than 24 gb of RAM.

Still... Flash (or Javascript ) is the way to go, trust me.

WHAT??? What's even the point?

coolstuff · 2010-08-17 15:11:32

iCode-747 wrote:
I don't have a computer that has less than 24 gb of RAM.

I don't believe that... Windows 7, Home Edition, 64-bit, only supports up to 16 GB RAM.

majormax · 2010-08-19 16:59:49

Here is my opinion:
If online scratch is written in flash, that's 100% okay with me. But I think oflline scratch should be squeak. If it isn't squeak, I would mod in all the new features myself if I had to. I think they should at least let the community write a squeak version, then the scratch team add he share menu, and hopefully someone could make a flash player that works with projects made in the squeak or flash versions.

a1130 · 2010-08-19 17:06:42

Leave Scratch itself in Squeak, so we can keep our mods, BYOB, the familiar things in Shift-Click-R, and many abilities if it remains in Squeak! I agree with you guys. But the online player should be flash.

hdarken · 2010-08-19 17:20:42

a1130 wrote:
Leave Scratch itself in Squeak, so we can keep our mods, BYOB, the familiar things in Shift-Click-R, and many abilities if it remains in Squeak! I agree with you guys. But the online player should be flash.

Good idea!

trekkie2000 · 2010-08-19 17:23:46

Rewrite in flash!? Heck no! I like scratch the way it is thank you very much!

Harakou · 2010-08-19 18:05:53

Guys, keeping the offline player in Squeak completely defeats half the purpose of the rewrite. All the problems and glitches in the online player come from the Scratch code being translated from Squeak to Java. I don't know about you, but I want these problems cleared up. Mods can still continue with Scratch 1.4 as the base.

Scratch

archived forums

#151 2010-08-12 17:57:06

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#152 2010-08-12 18:00:06

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#153 2010-08-12 18:01:10

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#154 2010-08-12 19:33:57

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#155 2010-08-14 15:56:15

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

iCode-747 wrote:

#156 2010-08-14 16:26:11

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

iCode-747 wrote:

#157 2010-08-14 17:16:40

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#158 2010-08-14 17:18:35

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#159 2010-08-14 17:19:27

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#160 2010-08-14 17:27:20

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

coolstuff wrote:

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

Lellowsfuzz wrote:

#161 2010-08-14 17:31:03

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

Harakou wrote:

#162 2010-08-14 17:34:09

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

coolstuff wrote:

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

#163 2010-08-14 18:13:33

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

Harakou wrote:

#164 2010-08-14 18:31:58

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

shadow_7283 wrote:

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

#165 2010-08-14 18:41:23

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#166 2010-08-16 13:59:43

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

iCode-747 wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#167 2010-08-16 14:17:27

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#168 2010-08-16 14:23:23

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

Harakou wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#169 2010-08-17 14:04:37

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

iCode-747 wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

#170 2010-08-17 15:11:32

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

iCode-747 wrote:

#171 2010-08-19 16:59:49

Re: A Protest against Flash Scratch

#172 2010-08-19 17:06:42