bump

bump

bump

I wonder what it would do if you converted something to base 0.

bump

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

No support as per the reasons below.
It is a fun and interesting exercise and challenge for novice programmers to complete; there is such little practical use for it, that its use as an exercise and a challenge outweighs its possible uses in projects.

I disagree, I think that if you were to make a project, for example, something that can run assembly code, which would be quite fun to make, it would be far better to be able to encode into hex using a builtin, because otherwise you dramatically increase the time it takes the JIT compiler to parse all the custom blocks.

bump.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

No support as per the reasons below.

what the heck lol

—

Unfortunately, I won't be able to share my opinion on this as I'm still in fifth grade and haven't expertised this part of mathematics yet :P

bump

bump.

could you name a few uses?

DarthVader4Life wrote:

could you name a few uses?

please read the comments and you'll get some.

chrdagos wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

could you name a few uses?

please read the comments and you'll get some.

Perhaps name a few uses that are actually useful for 95% of the users on Scratch. This seems like an incredibly niche block only used to turn an entire script (or project) into a single block, and at that point, we might as well turn every script into a block. Also, don't give us that “read the comments you doofus” * because as far as I'm concerned, the culmination of 32 posts have agreed on three uses: to make save codes; making calculators (?) and; compiling assembly code. Because your average 11 year old will do that with rudimentary coding skills. In fact, I don't think YOU can come up with a good reason why besides a calculator because you have not answered any questions on why this would be useful.

fdreerf wrote:

the culmination of 32 posts have agreed on three uses: to make save codes; making calculators (?) and; compiling assembly code.

this is mainly because few people have posted in this topic, thus causing a near lack of reasons to implement this into scratch.

fdreerf wrote:

Also, don't give us that "read the comments you doofus

o.k. I’ll admit that I was a little rude, but

1: I didn’t say that.
2: the way you put that was kind of mean.

overall, I think that you are acting like a kid in the schoolyard. although I think I know what you are saying…

no support

chrdagos wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Also, don't give us that "read the comments you doofus

o.k. I’ll admit that I was a little rude, but

1: I didn’t say that.
2: the way you put that was kind of mean.

1) isn't true, 2) is:

chrdagos wrote:

please read the comments and you'll get some.

So yes, you did say that, and it was unconstructive (since you didn't actually explain it to the user). I think that fdreerf wanted to show you that it wasn't constructive by saying it again even less constructively. However, they made a mistake, too, a better response would be something like “please be more constructive by actually explaining things”.

WindOctahedron wrote:

chrdagos wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Also, don't give us that "read the comments you doofus

o.k. I’ll admit that I was a little rude, but

1: I didn’t say that.
2: the way you put that was kind of mean.

1) isn't true, 2) is:

chrdagos wrote:

please read the comments and you'll get some.

So yes, you did say that, and it was unconstructive (since you didn't actually explain it to the user). I think that fdreerf wanted to show you that it wasn't constructive by saying it again even less constructively. However, they made a mistake, too, a better response would be something like “please be more constructive by actually explaining things”.

o.k

bump.

bump.

bump.

bump.