Scratch

Daffy22 wrote:

Could you add this code either in the forum or the website?  It is so your users know they can upload and share BYOB projects!

Umm.  That sounds like a trivial request but actually it does raise issues for me.  One reason parents let kids use the Scratch web site is that it's guaranteed safe, both because Scratch can't do much to your disk and because questionable projects are very quickly removed by a combination of paid staff at MIT and an army of kid volunteers policing the site.  The first (technical) reason doesn't apply to mods, and I'm guessing the second doesn't apply to your site either.  That makes me nervous about an endorsement, even implicit.  A kid such as, say, soupoftomato, who's perfectly safe and happy using BYOB itself, but doesn't like profanity, is likely not to be safe and happy browsing the projects uploaded by a zillion people.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're providing a worthwhile service.  But I'm not sure my university's lawyers would want us to endorse it on their web service.

rubiks_cube_guy238 wrote:

make a block with an un-evaluated boolean and any other argument with the boolean first. Now drag the block out into the scripting area, and delete the boolean argument, and these blocks appear in the other argument:

(the script.
[report <false>]
)

Yeah, interesting.  Scripts like that (THE SCRIPT [REPORT ...]) are Jens's internal representation of THE ... BLOCK, so it's not surprising that the script is marked as atomic.

Anyway, I filed a Bugzilla report.

bharvey wrote:

fullmoon wrote:

Argh! No bookstores seem to carry it around here...

The good news:  The Cal bookstore has it.

The bad news:  It costs $86.

(You can get an old first edition cheaper if you work at it, but trust me, you want the second edition.)

EDIT: If you're not in a hurry, you can usually find used copies at the end of our semester, Dec 16.

Meh, I'll check my local library.

rubiks_cube_guy238 wrote:

ÜBERBUMP

It has been a bit quiet the last couple of days.  I was thinking everyone was scared away at the thought of the library. 

soupoftomato wrote:

When did I get back into this discussion after missing about 20 pages?

Hi!  I was just remembering you (I'm pretty sure) upset about the obscene programming language name mentioned here some time ago by mp56.  And so when the subject of moderating of uploaded projects came up I thought of you.

Hey bharvey, have you tried clicking the link in your sig? I think you misspelled the name of your own school! 

soupoftomato wrote:

Oh,I just didn't want my parents finding that in the computer history. XD

Ah!  Gotcha. 

bharvey wrote:

fullmoon wrote:

Hey bharvey, have you tried clicking the link in your sig?

Oooooops!  Thanks! 

*Twiddles thumbs waiting for 60 seconds to pass...* 

Hehe. I was really confused when I clicked that!

bharvey wrote:

*Twiddles thumbs waiting for 60 seconds to pass...* 

Just copy-paste into your previous post with this:
____________________________

between them! 

And now I'm waiting for the 60-second rule to pass on three separate posts in three separate threads....

bharvey wrote:

PS You should run! (for mod I mean)

Thanks! I'm considering it, but given the amount of candidates I have a very small chance of winning.

By the way, my friend actually GAVE me a Macbook Pro to fix. The first thing I installed on it was BYOB, a testament to its awesomeness. Second was Flex Builder 4, then Skype. 

One of the main things I think should be improved in BYOB is more sample projects 

Oh, I guess now that my scripting language is in a decently-working order you guys could have it for a sample project. It's just...does anyone have a really fast dictionary class? Because the one I used is just lists of associations.

Yes, but that depends how big the function list is! It might not be so reasonable after all! 
The problem is that I also used associative lists for variables, so they're a little slow, but that's the only dictionary that's used at runtime, the rest is compiled (YAY!).
I just need a few more than 3 or 4 functions, and maybe some special-casing with assignment/operators (I haven't made operators yet  )
Sadly, no lambdas yet, but they're on the list! Remarkably, they would be quite easy to implement, it just means a little more work by the parser.
EDIT: Actually, the work would be in the evaluator because it would just leave the compiled code as it is instead of evaluating it.

Last edited by nXIII (2010-09-13 20:30:51)