iamunknown2 wrote:

Support.

Also, another reason for not implementing it would be because of the fact that live editing isn't how actual programmers collaborate. Encouraging this practice would also mean inefficient collaboration in the future.

How does this promote a bad way of collaboration? Do you encourage very little communication in collaboration? (You clearly do). Programmers live edit all the time, I don't see where you got the idea that they don't.

I only would support this because of what Paddle2See said about moderation. In fact, just remove this quote from the rejection reason because it isn't true that it would “encourage a bad way”. Your way is not their way; just because you believe that lack of communication is good doesn't mean that all programmers should develop your system.

You also cannot argue “actuality” and “true” programmers do something. That is a Scott-mans Fallacy and makes the point invalid.

Lythium wrote:

Hi.

So recently, there has been a large amount of suggestions asking for live editing of projects with multiple users. However, this leads to many problems such as PM'ing, which is already rejected, and the fact that Scratch is not designed for live editing, and therefore cannot handle it.


So, please add this common suggestion to the ‘rejected suggestion’ sticky.
Thanks!

This isn't a suggestion though. I think it should be moved.

Blaze349 wrote:

Lythium wrote:

Hi.

So recently, there has been a large amount of suggestions asking for live editing of projects with multiple users. However, this leads to many problems such as PM'ing, which is already rejected, and the fact that Scratch is not designed for live editing, and therefore cannot handle it.


So, please add this common suggestion to the ‘rejected suggestion’ sticky.
Thanks!

This isn't a suggestion though. I think it should be moved.

ummm…. this is a suggestion.

MathlyCat wrote:

Programmers live edit all the time, I don't see where you got the idea that they don't.

They don't when it comes to programming. Floobits is much less used than say, svn or Git or Mercurial.

You also cannot argue “actuality” and “true” programmers do something. That is a Scott-mans Fallacy and makes the point invalid.

Well, if you say that's a Scotsman, you might as well say that there shouldn't be any problem with communication in Beijing if you speak Esperanto since saying that Chinese people generally speak Mandarin is a Scotsman fallacy.

Another example would be editors - I don't care if you use Vim or Emacs or Sublime, but if you turn in your code in WordPerfect format with manual syntax coloring, that's going to be a big nuisance.

Also, see the “fallacy fallacy” and this post by me in the same topic you probably didn't read.

just because you believe that lack of communication is good doesn't mean that all programmers should develop your system.

That is a blatant strawman. Live editing doesn't mean better communication. Live editing simply means multiple people editing at the same time on the some document. If you say “because chat”, the document isn't the only place you should be communicating. There's email, Slack, IRC, and other chat protocols out there for a reason.

Support

Sigton

I think we should set ‘Live editing’ aside until the moderation and bandwidth issues have been solved. Discussing it now has lost all productivity because nobody's actually giving a solution to the two largest problems with it, and those issues need solutions in order for the idea to get implemented.

(Supporting Paddle2See's version of this suggestion.)

A-no-meep wrote:

I think we should set ‘Live editing’ aside until the moderation and bandwidth issues have been solved. Discussing it now has lost all productivity because nobody's actually giving a solution to the two largest problems with it, and those issues need solutions in order for the idea to get implemented.

(Supporting Paddle2See's version of this suggestion.)

The bandwidth solution is very far away.

MathlyCat wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Support.

Also, another reason for not implementing it would be because of the fact that live editing isn't how actual programmers collaborate. Encouraging this practice would also mean inefficient collaboration in the future.

How does this promote a bad way of collaboration? Do you encourage very little communication in collaboration? (You clearly do). Programmers live edit all the time, I don't see where you got the idea that they don't.

I only would support this because of what Paddle2See said about moderation. In fact, just remove this quote from the rejection reason because it isn't true that it would “encourage a bad way”. Your way is not their way; just because you believe that lack of communication is good doesn't mean that all programmers should develop your system.

You also cannot argue “actuality” and “true” programmers do something. That is a Scott-mans Fallacy and makes the point invalid.

First of all, fallacies don't make your thesis invalid on their own (the “fallacy fallacy”!) - it just makes the argument invalid.
If we define “actual programmers” as “programmers who make a living working in a professional environment” such as at places like Microsoft, Apple, or Google, they don't do live editing together. Google, at least, uses (their own) VCS/SCM. Given that that's true, it's not the No True Scotsman (not Scott-mans ) fallacy - it's what *actually happens*.
You generalize to communication, when the topic is a very specific part of communication - live editing. That's the straw man fallacy.

Firedrake969 wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Support.

Also, another reason for not implementing it would be because of the fact that live editing isn't how actual programmers collaborate. Encouraging this practice would also mean inefficient collaboration in the future.

How does this promote a bad way of collaboration? Do you encourage very little communication in collaboration? (You clearly do). Programmers live edit all the time, I don't see where you got the idea that they don't.

I only would support this because of what Paddle2See said about moderation. In fact, just remove this quote from the rejection reason because it isn't true that it would “encourage a bad way”. Your way is not their way; just because you believe that lack of communication is good doesn't mean that all programmers should develop your system.

You also cannot argue “actuality” and “true” programmers do something. That is a Scott-mans Fallacy and makes the point invalid.

First of all, fallacies don't make your thesis invalid on their own (the “fallacy fallacy”!) - it just makes the argument invalid.
If we define “actual programmers” as “programmers who make a living working in a professional environment” such as at places like Microsoft, Apple, or Google, they don't do live editing together. Google, at least, uses (their own) VCS/SCM. Given that that's true, it's not the No True Scotsman (not Scott-mans ) fallacy - it's what *actually happens*.
You generalize to communication, when the topic is a very specific part of communication - live editing. That's the straw man fallacy.

Real programmers don't use collaborative editing, but then again real programmers don't use simplified graphical languages either! (well except the ones that use labview, but they complain about it all the time).

The point of Scratch is to *learn programming* not to magically act like a real programmer already. I think collaborative editing is a great idea, especially since it solves a lot of problems with collab accounts.

Since this has been added to the sticky, I'm gonna close this.