Well, it deals with attributes of objects (sprites), so I guess yes. I think the ([attribute] of [sprite]) seals it.
Offline
MathWizz wrote:
If Scratch could store sprites and costumes and such in variables, then I would consider it OOP.
No, I think that would be First Class Data.
Offline
Hardmath123 wrote:
MathWizz wrote:
If Scratch could store sprites and costumes and such in variables, then I would consider it OOP.
No, I think that would be First Class Data.
You need than to be OOP.
Offline
Eh, no. Not really. Eh, not much.

Offline
It is partially OO.
The fact that it has sprites (classes) that hold different scripts (as opposed to a single long script) makes it OO, but it cannot create sprites on runtime or store them in variables.
Offline
no
Offline
No. Scratch is an object-based language, but not an object-oriented one. Sprites are the objects of Scratch: they have state (variables) and behaviour (scripts). But Scratch does not support classes, inheritance, generics or interfaces, therefore it can't be considered an OO language.
3.3 Sprites: The Scratch Object Model
Sprites are objects: they encapsulate state (variables) and behavior (scripts). However, since Scratch has neither classes nor inheritance, it is an object-based language but not an object-oriented one. (A language must support inheritance to be called object-oriented [Wegner 1987].)
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Eastmond, E. 2010. The Scratch
Programming Language and Environment. Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 16, 16:1–16:15.
Offline
Baderous wrote:
No. Scratch is an object-based language, but not an object-oriented one. Sprites are the objects of Scratch: they have state (variables) and behaviour (scripts). But Scratch does not support classes, inheritance, generics or interfaces, therefore it can't be considered an OO language.
3.3 Sprites: The Scratch Object Model
Sprites are objects: they encapsulate state (variables) and behavior (scripts). However, since Scratch has neither classes nor inheritance, it is an object-based language but not an object-oriented one. (A language must support inheritance to be called object-oriented [Wegner 1987].)Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Eastmond, E. 2010. The Scratch
Programming Language and Environment. Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 16, 16:1–16:15.
^ This.

Offline
maxskywalker wrote:
No.
Your signature needs to be updated.
Aside from that, I already knew that it wasn’t.
Did you even read the posts above?
Offline
MathWizz wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
MathWizz wrote:
If Scratch could store sprites and costumes and such in variables, then I would consider it OOP.
No, I think that would be First Class Data.
You need than to be OOP.
No, object oriented programming means you can create objects with attributes and methods. A sprite's attributes are xpos, ypos, direction, costume#, etc. The methods are the scripts and blocks. So I say it is OOP.
Offline
Hardmath123 wrote:
MathWizz wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
No, I think that would be First Class Data.You need than to be OOP.
No, object oriented programming means you can create objects with attributes and methods. A sprite's attributes are xpos, ypos, direction, costume#, etc. The methods are the scripts and blocks. So I say it is OOP.
I think you haven't read my post. I cited an article from Mitchel Resnick and other members of the Scratch Team in which they state clearly that Scratch is NOT object-oriented and why they say that. It's not a matter of what you think or what someone else thinks. It's a fact.
Offline