vode123 wrote:

--Explosion-- wrote:

I thunk that instead of makign the whole of scratch faster, the ST could get in contact with whoever made forkphorus and have a “run with forkphorus” checkbox on the project page for slow projects.

YEAH! That's a very smart idea, -Explosion-!

Thanks! (forkphoris has some bugs though, for example, try playing griffpatch's geometry dash in it, it will break right in the middle, also partially transparent shapes cause bugs, touching color works differently and vector costumes are rendered at much lower resolution.)

--Explosion-- wrote:

vode123 wrote:

--Explosion-- wrote:

I thunk that instead of makign the whole of scratch faster, the ST could get in contact with whoever made forkphorus and have a “run with forkphorus” checkbox on the project page for slow projects.

YEAH! That's a very smart idea, -Explosion-!

Thanks! (forkphoris has some bugs though, for example, try playing griffpatch's geometry dash in it, it will break right in the middle, also partially transparent shapes cause bugs, touching color works differently and vector costumes are rendered at much lower resolution.)

I think a better approach would be to see how forkphorus is faster than Scratch 3 and implement some of those optimisations into Scratch 3 - forkphorus is open source after all.
Personally, I think it's a higher priority to focus on optimising memory usage than to try and make any speed improvements to Scratch, though those would be appreciated.

First of all, Scratch wasn't meant for 3D projects. One of the rejected suggestions is 3D Scratch and the Scratch Team was sure it wouldn't be possible in Scratch but some people like @griffpatch managed to make 3D projects somehow. Because Scratch isn't supposed to run that way there are FPS drops and slow operations. I also have to let you think about this:

ShinyRowlet_23 wrote:

People seem to forget that Scratch is a children’s coding website and not a super complex coding software.

Scratch is for kids to learn how to start coding. Not for people who have had tons of coding experience and want to make a detailed indie game.

Scratch is for kids, just because you make complex games and a couple of others do doesn't mean New Scratchers will. And if you know advanced programming, you'll know making something more powerful is extremely hard and costs a lot of $$$.

45afc4td wrote:

vode123 wrote:

45afc4td wrote:

So, you mean returning Scratch to Flash as of the next major version?

I NEVER SAID THAT SCRATCH SHOULD RETURN TO FLASH PLAYER!

So, uh, you mean compiling Scratch files to native x86 code with optimizations involved?

I never talked about returning to Flash! That would literally be the death of Scratch! Why do you keep on talking about returning to 2.0 ways!!!

vode123 wrote:

45afc4td wrote:

vode123 wrote:

45afc4td wrote:

So, you mean returning Scratch to Flash as of the next major version?

I NEVER SAID THAT SCRATCH SHOULD RETURN TO FLASH PLAYER!

So, uh, you mean compiling Scratch files to native x86 code with optimizations involved?

I never talked about returning to Flash! That would literally be the death of Scratch! Why do you keep on talking about returning to 2.0 ways!!!

I was talking about compiling to native x86 code this time, which is neither HTML5 or Flash but rather the fastest code possible for the x86.

CatsUnited wrote:

I think a better approach would be to see how forkphorus is faster than Scratch 3 and implement some of those optimisations into Scratch 3 - forkphorus is open source after all.
Personally, I think it's a higher priority to focus on optimising memory usage than to try and make any speed improvements to Scratch, though those would be appreciated.

Doesn't forphorus compile the JSON to JS before running it? At least I'm pretty sure that phosphorus and sulfurous did this.

45afc4td wrote:

I was talking about compiling to native x86 code this time, which is neither HTML5 or Flash but rather the fastest code possible for the x86.

This would be ideal if possible, better than compiling to JS.

Scratch 3.0 is real laggy, way laggier than 2.0.
The ST probably aren't gonna fix this, because they don't have to.
If you want faster, use somewhere else, like snap i guess.

45afc4td wrote:

I was talking about compiling to native x86 code this time, which is neither HTML5 or Flash but rather the fastest code possible for the x86.

What about ARM though? I imagine quite a few people already use Scratch on their tablets and phones, and I feel like that number's going to increase over time.

miniepicness wrote:

Scratch 3.0 is real laggy, way laggier than 2.0.
The ST probably aren't gonna fix this, because they don't have to.
If you want faster, use somewhere else, like snap i guess.

Just wondering, what machine are you using? Based on a few benchmarks I've tested, Scratch 3 is faster than Scratch 2, however the lag issue you may be having could be because your machine doesn't have a lot of RAM in it since Scratch is a really memory intensive program ATM

CatsUnited wrote:

45afc4td wrote:

I was talking about compiling to native x86 code this time, which is neither HTML5 or Flash but rather the fastest code possible for the x86.

What about ARM though? I imagine quite a few people already use Scratch on their tablets and phones, and I feel like that number's going to increase over time.

Of course, each platform requires a separate compiler. It is exactly this problem that causes some mobile developers to think HTML5 is the way to run stuff on mobile, causing apps to be overly complex and take up way more disk space than the actual entropy they have to save.

CatsUnited wrote:

miniepicness wrote:

Scratch 3.0 is real laggy, way laggier than 2.0.
The ST probably aren't gonna fix this, because they don't have to.
If you want faster, use somewhere else, like snap i guess.

Just wondering, what machine are you using? Based on a few benchmarks I've tested, Scratch 3 is faster than Scratch 2, however the lag issue you may be having could be because your machine doesn't have a lot of RAM in it since Scratch is a really memory intensive program ATM

On most PCs, very complex applications run exponentially slower the more complex they are, so HTML5 runs slower than Flash. It is not until the very expensive hardware most people don't have that very complex applications become faster than less complex ones. That's why on my PC, () and many others', it is the Scratch 2.0 that runs projects the fastest out of the three main versions. More complex than 1.4 so it knows to run projects faster, but at the same time not as complex as 3.0 as to itself slow down.

CatsUnited wrote:

--Explosion-- wrote:

vode123 wrote:

--Explosion-- wrote:

I thunk that instead of makign the whole of scratch faster, the ST could get in contact with whoever made forkphorus and have a “run with forkphorus” checkbox on the project page for slow projects.

YEAH! That's a very smart idea, -Explosion-!

Thanks! (forkphoris has some bugs though, for example, try playing griffpatch's geometry dash in it, it will break right in the middle, also partially transparent shapes cause bugs, touching color works differently and vector costumes are rendered at much lower resolution.)

I think a better approach would be to see how forkphorus is faster than Scratch 3 and implement some of those optimisations into Scratch 3 - forkphorus is open source after all.
Personally, I think it's a higher priority to focus on optimising memory usage than to try and make any speed improvements to Scratch, though those would be appreciated.

WOW. I am getting lots of very, very, very good suggestions! Thank you for all of those!

Nambaseking01 wrote:

First of all, Scratch wasn't meant for 3D projects. One of the rejected suggestions is 3D Scratch and the Scratch Team was sure it wouldn't be possible in Scratch but some people like @griffpatch managed to make 3D projects somehow. Because Scratch isn't supposed to run that way there are FPS drops and slow operations.

I am talking about performance in general, not for 3D projects. The 3D platformer thing was just an example.

45afc4td wrote:

I was talking about compiling to native x86 code this time, which is neither HTML5 or Flash but rather the fastest code possible for the x86.

Hmm, I suspect that might be a slightly $$$EXPENSIVE$$$ option.

I've noticed that a lot of people are AGAINST my making-scratch-more-powerful idea, and I totally understand. I know about the costs, effort, and hardship of making Scratch faster and more powerful. But I agree with the alternative that @-Explosion- suggested and @CatsUnited improved on. Thank you for sharing your views on this topic, and I am grateful for your opinions… but please, please, PLEASE don't close this topic. It may be important for 4.0, so please don't close it.
Thank you.

by @vode123

when green flag clicked
forever
if <(FPS) < [10]> then
say [Well, at least we can ask the people who created forkphourus for help! :)]
end
end

Support.

As many people have said above, Scratch is a website for children. Maybe they make a more powerful Scratch on another site. This could have more powerful projects on it and a more powerful version of scratch.

vode123 wrote:

It may be important for 4.0, so please don't close it. […]

4.0 isn't going to release anytime soon, 3.0 only came out because Google Chrome is going to not support Flash Player from next year December.

PumpkinBear111 wrote:

Support.

As many people have said above, Scratch is a website for children. Maybe they make a more powerful Scratch on another site. This could have more powerful projects on it and a more powerful version of scratch.

The Scratch Team isn't planning to create another Scratch website (they're already doing everything to stay away from that) so I think making the current version powerful would be the right approach.

PumpkinBear111 wrote:

Support.

As many people have said above, Scratch is a website for children. Maybe they make a more powerful Scratch on another site. This could have more powerful projects on it and a more powerful version of scratch.

What do you mean github doesn't exist? People share various code on there

Nambaseking01 wrote:

4.0 isn't going to release anytime soon, 3.0 only came out because Google Chrome is going to not support Flash Player from next year December.

But the gap from 1.0 (around 2007) to 2.0 (2013) was six years. From 2.0 to 3.0 was six years again. At the current rate, Scratch should have a major update every six years, as the gap was the same. Ok, so maybe you are right… but 2.0 was six years old, and anyway, more people are using mobile devices and not PCs, so that's another reason to ditch Flash.

vode123 wrote:

But the gap from 1.0 (around 2007) to 2.0 (2013) was six years. From 2.0 to 3.0 was six years again. At the current rate, Scratch should have a major update every six years, as the gap was the same. Ok, so maybe you are right… but 2.0 was six years old, and anyway, more people are using mobile devices and not PCs, so that's another reason to ditch Flash.

Well, even I'm unsure if 4.0 will not release at all - we'll have to wait and see the Scratch Team's decision. ^u^

Part of the fun is making use of simple pieces of code and creating something out of them. In assembly, there aren’t really that many pieces of code, yet people have made entire operating systems capable of stuff Scratch could never achieve. Scratch has done pretty well for a programming language embedded inside a browser. Speed wise, if there was a faster way, I think the Scratch team would of considered it. Keep in mind that there are a ton of things that go on behind the scenes. With a standard language like Python, all it really needs to go is interpret the python code into executable code. Overall, Scratch is a pretty quick and versatile language.

Yes. Make Scratch harder, better, faster, stronger. Scratch is simply too outdated to be relevant in our modern times. Here's a short list of the standards that Scratch should strive to meet that it doesn't already:

• Be turing complete
  
• Water resistance (to comply with ISO 6425)
  
• Debug mode
  
• Better markup support
  
• Virtual assistant (like Siri, Cortana etc)
  
• Mission statement
  
• Shock resistance
  
• Hyperrealistic graphics engine
  
• Automatic zoom
  
• Integrated stylus
  
• Support for Unix-based operating systems
  
• Cultural relevance
  
• Battery support (I'm tired of having to lug around an AC adaptor when I want to use Scratch)
  

skaficionado wrote:

Yes. Make Scratch harder, better, faster, stronger. Scratch is simply too outdated to be relevant in our modern times. Here's a short list of the standards that Scratch should strive to meet that it doesn't already:

• Be turing complete
  
• Water resistance (to comply with ISO 6425)
  
• Debug mode
  
• Better markup support
  
• Virtual assistant (like Siri, Cortana etc)
  
• Mission statement
  
• Shock resistance
  
• Hyperrealistic graphics engine
  
• Automatic zoom
  
• Integrated stylus
  
• Support for Unix-based operating systems
  
• Cultural relevance
  
• Battery support (I'm tired of having to lug around an AC adaptor when I want to use Scratch)
  

Uh, wouldn't that be even slower on every single system that's less than $1000000000000? That is, everyone except for those people that do have the latest hardware and would brag about how it's faster than 3.0.

45afc4td wrote:

skaficionado wrote:

Yes. Make Scratch harder, better, faster, stronger. Scratch is simply too outdated to be relevant in our modern times. Here's a short list of the standards that Scratch should strive to meet that it doesn't already:

• Be turing complete
  
• Water resistance (to comply with ISO 6425)
  
• Debug mode
  
• Better markup support
  
• Virtual assistant (like Siri, Cortana etc)
  
• Mission statement
  
• Shock resistance
  
• Hyperrealistic graphics engine
  
• Automatic zoom
  
• Integrated stylus
  
• Support for Unix-based operating systems
  
• Cultural relevance
  
• Battery support (I'm tired of having to lug around an AC adaptor when I want to use Scratch)
  

Uh, wouldn't that be even slower on every single system that's less than $1000000000000? That is, everyone except for those people that do have the latest hardware and would brag about how it's faster than 3.0.

With Moore's Law, it wouldn't even be a problem.

skaficionado wrote:

45afc4td wrote:

skaficionado wrote:

Yes. Make Scratch harder, better, faster, stronger. Scratch is simply too outdated to be relevant in our modern times. Here's a short list of the standards that Scratch should strive to meet that it doesn't already:

• Be turing complete
  
• Water resistance (to comply with ISO 6425)
  
• Debug mode
  
• Better markup support
  
• Virtual assistant (like Siri, Cortana etc)
  
• Mission statement
  
• Shock resistance
  
• Hyperrealistic graphics engine
  
• Automatic zoom
  
• Integrated stylus
  
• Support for Unix-based operating systems
  
• Cultural relevance
  
• Battery support (I'm tired of having to lug around an AC adaptor when I want to use Scratch)
  

Uh, wouldn't that be even slower on every single system that's less than $1000000000000? That is, everyone except for those people that do have the latest hardware and would brag about how it's faster than 3.0.

With Moore's Law, it wouldn't even be a problem.

but no one will afford the hardware and no one will be able to complain about this either because they wouldn't be able to access the forums