The4thPixel wrote:

No support. Scratch is an entry level language, and this seems confusing.

BurnedCrystal wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

Scratch is going to confuse the heck out of beginners no matter how simple we make it. Like nobody is born knowing their abc's, scratch itself cannot be a 100% grab and go thing. Why else would the Tips menu exist?

You're confusing them by restricting their access to advanced functions as well. When they finally to encounter these, bad programming practices they might've picked up from scratch restrict their ability to learn and perform even more than if they'd started from a higher floor, as if you'd damaged the ladder to the top.

or for comparison, take every letter out of the alphabet but A B and C. It's easy to learn those three… but then trying to make more complex things like words out of them becomes harder (nearly impossible) which simply raises the low floor even more than having the full set… it's creating the illusion of a low floor that really doesn't exist. And that's bad

TL;DR: Irrelevant semi-textwall

Essentially you're saying the newcomers here are too unintelligent to understand something as simple as putting toys in a box based on their color

when green flag clicked
move (true) steps

-Io- wrote:

Hello, duplicate

Man, i'm not going to read the whole discussion. But it feels like an attack against DaSpud.

I agree with DaSpudLord. This whole idea is too complex for a language like this, a block-based language directed to kids.

1. First of all, to people arguing against DaSpud, having programming knowledge doesn't give you the right to suggest concepts which not many people understand. You, Chibi (or should i call you Matoran?), even said that the current main community focus of Scratch is mostly not coding.
   It may have various projects where people do formally program, but most of them still not have as much programming as an ideal programming community, like most text-based programming communities, would have.
   
2. Adding such complex features, does raise the low floor. Not in the way of features, but in the way of people's desire to program.
   Seeing complex stuff slows down people in wanting to learn something. Some people don't want to learn math because it's too complex. They feel like they will not succeed when they see older grades' text books. But when they reach it, if they understood, at least mildly, past concepts, they will grasp it easily, or at least they will grasp it.
   Also, there's a difference between math and Scratch. Math is completely obligatory, while in Scratch mostly only the basic features are obligatory, or not even in the educational program of school or even life, and that's why they keep going, and learning math, not because they want to, but because they have to.
   
3. How do you plan to implement this? Direct translation?
   

   class [example] :: cstart custom
     public :: cstart custom
       variable [var1]  :: custom
       list [list1] :: custom
     end
     private :: cstart custom
       variable [var2]  :: custom
       list [list2] :: custom
     end
     init (arg) ◄►  :: cstart custom // for some reason i can't use "constructor" in scratchblocks. I'll report it to blob
       set [var1] to [test] :: custom
       add [test] to [list2] :: custom
     end
     method [say aaaa] (arg) ◄► :: cstart custom
       say [aaaa]
     end
     property [type] :: cstart custom
       return [example] :: custom cap
     end
   end
   set [var v] to (new [example v] :: custom)
   set [prop v] to (property [type] of (var) :: custom)
   method [say aaaa] args: [] ◄► of (var) :: custom

   Or what? Because this seems to complex…
   

This is an extended version of my reasoning for no supporting the original topic describing this feature, and preferring BookOwl's suggestion instead.

EDIT: Little edit. Forgot to reply someone.

BurnedCrystal wrote:

Essentially you're saying the newcomers here are too unintelligent to understand something as simple as putting toys in a box based on their color

Problem is, this is not sorting toys, but a much more complex concept

(video [ v] on [Stage v])