Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

PPPDUD wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

However, still some sort of answer. Think of it as the question ‘what’s your gender,’ 43% of Scratchers identify as female as a rough estimate. So, while not exactly 43%, it is enough to say that it have 43% female users

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

PPPDUD wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

However, still some sort of answer. Think of it as the question ‘what’s your gender,’ 43% of Scratchers identify as female as a rough estimate. So, while not exactly 43%, it is enough to say that it have 43% female users

You can make an estimation, again, given the relevance of Micro:Bit.

TCK_Official wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

PPPDUD wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

However, still some sort of answer. Think of it as the question ‘what’s your gender,’ 43% of Scratchers identify as female as a rough estimate. So, while not exactly 43%, it is enough to say that it have 43% female users

You can make an estimation, again, given the relevance of Micro:Bit.

Not every Scratcher with a Micro:Bit has an Arduino, and the stat is likely different.

TCK_Official wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

PPPDUD wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

However, still some sort of answer. Think of it as the question ‘what’s your gender,’ 43% of Scratchers identify as female as a rough estimate. So, while not exactly 43%, it is enough to say that it have 43% female users

You can make an estimation, again, given the relevance of Micro:Bit.

That info is only used to show the impact of Scratch on women/girls, and wasn't actually used for the purpose of making decisions, I think.

How is anyone supposed to know how many Scratchers own a Microbit, or anything else? Arguing that only a small minority would use Arduino extensions is pointless. The Arduino Uno alone has 10M sales compared to Microbit's 4M and is cheaper (ignoring processing power).

The Arduino hardware and software are open-sourced, so Scratch shouldn't have to collab with Arduino to make an extension. Also, I think Scratch could interact with an Arduino through USB or Bluetooth, IIRC.

ajskateboarder wrote:

How is anyone supposed to know how many Scratchers own a Microbit, or anything else? Arguing that only a small minority would use Arduino extensions is pointless. The Arduino Uno alone has 10M sales compared to Microbit's 4M and is cheaper (ignoring processing power).

The Arduino hardware and software are open-sourced, so Scratch shouldn't have to collab with Arduino to make an extension. Also, I think Scratch could interact with an Arduino through USB or Bluetooth, IIRC.

Mirco:Bit was already there, and, again, even if it for deciding if they should add it, the ST should know which model is most popular among Scratchers, so even if it wasn’t larger, they would still need to know which model to use.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

How is anyone supposed to know how many Scratchers own a Microbit, or anything else? Arguing that only a small minority would use Arduino extensions is pointless. The Arduino Uno alone has 10M sales compared to Microbit's 4M and is cheaper (ignoring processing power).

The Arduino hardware and software are open-sourced, so Scratch shouldn't have to collab with Arduino to make an extension. Also, I think Scratch could interact with an Arduino through USB or Bluetooth, IIRC.

Mirco:Bit was already there, and, again, even if it for deciding if they should add it, the ST should know which model is most popular among Scratchers, so even if it wasn’t larger, they would still need to know which model to use.

Not everything is about business. Scratch is an educational platform, and while yes, money matters, them adding an Arduino extension would do little to impact its business model. In fact, it would be more beneficial to Scratch as users with Arduinos may come to Scratch specifically for the extension. No, they don't know which business model is popular among Scratchers because they don't do surveys or random stuff like that. While they might know how many users use the Micro:Bit extension, as ajskateboarder said, Arduinos are much more popular than Micro:Bit and with that information alone we can assume that the use of an Arduino extension would be greater than the Micro:Bit extension, which still has enough relevance to remain in Scratch today.

Yes Micro:Bit was already there, but that has little to do with the main topic. You're arguing a point that doesn't make much sense, again, as ajskateboarder said, arguing that only a small minority of Scratchers would use the extension is rather pointless. In the end, an Arduino extension would be beneficial to users and Scratch, useful, and better than the Micro:Bit extension.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

TCK_Official wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

PPPDUD wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Fair for the models.
But, it isn’t really an invasion of privacy. We could ask for others devices, cuz Scratch has different performance. So, asking if they have a Arduino isn’t really an invasion of privacy, since they can just decline to answer.

However, this wouldn't give an accurate answer.

However, still some sort of answer. Think of it as the question ‘what’s your gender,’ 43% of Scratchers identify as female as a rough estimate. So, while not exactly 43%, it is enough to say that it have 43% female users

You can make an estimation, again, given the relevance of Micro:Bit.

Not every Scratcher with a Micro:Bit has an Arduino, and the stat is likely different.

Not every Scratcher with a Micro:Bit has to have an Arduino. There would be four different audiences in this scope, the ones who have neither Micro:Bit or Arduino, the ones who have Micro:Bit and Arduino, the ones who only have Micro:Bit, or ones who only have Arduino. You only identified the third audience, which shows another flaw in your argument.

TCK_Official wrote:

Not everything is about business. Scratch is an educational platform, and while yes, money matters, them adding an Arduino extension would do little to impact its business model. In fact, it would be more beneficial to Scratch as users with Arduinos may come to Scratch specifically for the extension. No, they don't know which business model is popular among Scratchers because they don't do surveys or random stuff like that. While they might know how many users use the Micro:Bit extension, as ajskateboarder said, Arduinos are much more popular than Micro:Bit and with that information alone we can assume that the use of an Arduino extension would be greater than the Micro:Bit extension, which still has enough relevance to remain in Scratch today.

Yes Micro:Bit was already there, but that has little to do with the main topic. You're arguing a point that doesn't make much sense, again, as ajskateboarder said, arguing that only a small minority of Scratchers would use the extension is rather pointless. In the end, an Arduino extension would be beneficial to users and Scratch, useful, and better than the Micro:Bit extension.

1. Again, how many Scratchers use a specific model of Arduino. The ST would preferably optimize the code to work with a more popular model, so they would have to do a survey to decide which model to initially work with.
2. I wasn’t referring to business for the surveys. I was referring to how many users use a specific model. Theres likely more and less popular models, so they should choose which one is most popular for the majority of Scratchers with them.
3. I wasn’t arguing that a small minority of Scratch would use the extension, i was arguing the Scratchers who do use it would be, theoretically, the ones with the most popular among Scratchers.
4. I never once mentioned the business end in that response.
5. Adding onto 1-4, i doubt many Scratchers would use it if they used a less popular model.
So, this leads to some questions.
1. It was already mentioned a model they should look into, but any other contenders?
2. Would they use the code for the Micro:Bit extension for a blueprint, or go a whole new direction?
3. How does the model they choose connect to the computer?
4. What specific blocks would the ST add alongside the extension, and what would the icon for it be?

TCK_Official wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

TCK_Official wrote:

You can make an estimation, again, given the relevance of Micro:Bit.

Not every Scratcher with a Micro:Bit has an Arduino, and the stat is likely different.

Not every Scratcher with a Micro:Bit has to have an Arduino. There would be four different audiences in this scope, the ones who have neither Micro:Bit or Arduino, the ones who have Micro:Bit and Arduino, the ones who only have Micro:Bit, or ones who only have Arduino. You only identified the third audience, which shows another flaw in your argument.

First, I have gone past that argument, and haven’t brought it up. Also, we should account for other audiences, how many Scratchers use a specific model, and which should be specifically implemented. The other 3 audiences are inferred.
And, i was making that same point. Theres a difference in stats between those who have one or the other. So, disregarding the model difference, how many users have an Arduino. Now, I believe 10,000,000 people have one from the stats on it, but llets say 5 million users have one. Theres over 100 models, so lets say 100 models, of course making the end result a rough estimate. 5,000,000/100 means 5,000 users per model. Of course, lets say this stat is true. Which models would they choose to implement first. Now, lets say 1 model has 4 million users. They would chose that. So, of course, to figure out the top models, a survey, not for business, but to decide the model they first implement. Also, where did I only mention users with both? I said few do.
Misread it. However, again, how many people would have both?

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

TCK_Official wrote:

Not everything is about business. Scratch is an educational platform, and while yes, money matters, them adding an Arduino extension would do little to impact its business model. In fact, it would be more beneficial to Scratch as users with Arduinos may come to Scratch specifically for the extension. No, they don't know which business model is popular among Scratchers because they don't do surveys or random stuff like that. While they might know how many users use the Micro:Bit extension, as ajskateboarder said, Arduinos are much more popular than Micro:Bit and with that information alone we can assume that the use of an Arduino extension would be greater than the Micro:Bit extension, which still has enough relevance to remain in Scratch today.

Yes Micro:Bit was already there, but that has little to do with the main topic. You're arguing a point that doesn't make much sense, again, as ajskateboarder said, arguing that only a small minority of Scratchers would use the extension is rather pointless. In the end, an Arduino extension would be beneficial to users and Scratch, useful, and better than the Micro:Bit extension.

1. Again, how many Scratchers use a specific model of Arduino. The ST would preferably optimize the code to work with a more popular model, so they would have to do a survey to decide which model to initially work with.
2. I wasn’t referring to business for the surveys. I was referring to how many users use a specific model. Theres likely more and less popular models, so they should choose which one is most popular for the majority of Scratchers with them.
3. I wasn’t arguing that a small minority of Scratch would use the extension, i was arguing the Scratchers who do use it would be, theoretically, the ones with the most popular among Scratchers.
4. I never once mentioned the business end in that response.
5. Adding onto 1-4, i doubt many Scratchers would use it if they used a less popular model.
So, this leads to some questions.
1. It was already mentioned a model they should look into, but any other contenders?
2. Would they use the code for the Micro:Bit extension for a blueprint, or go a whole new direction?
3. How does the model they choose connect to the computer?
4. What specific blocks would the ST add alongside the extension, and what would the icon for it be?

I don't think you know how an Arduino works. All Arduino models work the same way; they are programmable the same way with the same software. They don't need to make it for only one model, just for the general Arduino and it would work for all Arduinos.

In other words, you wouldn't need to make software for an individual Arduino Model (ex. Arduino Uno) but instead you would need to make one software that would work with the general Arduino and that would work with every other Arduino model because all Arduinos run off of basically the same thing.

With that being said, even if said Scratchers use a less-popular model, it would still be able to work with the extension just like all other models would. Hopefully that eleminates points 1, 2, 4, and in your other questions, 1. As for questions 2, 3, and 4:

2. It depends on how the Micro:Bit extension works. Arduino is an entirely different product and software, so while they could theoretically use a tiny part of the Micro:Bit extension as a base for the Arduino extension, you probably wouldn't be able to salvage much.
3. Arduinos connect using USB. Arduino itself has an online editor, so it's definitely possible to make the website be able to connect through USB to the Arduino.
4. The blocks would be quite a lot. Arduinos native language is a fork of C++, which gives it a but-ton of functions and usage. Therefore, there would need to be quite a bit of blocks in it, but adding a certain set of blocks that can be customizable to an extent could be a possible solution to adding tons of blocks individually. The icon for it would mostlikely be the Arduino logo.

TCK_Official wrote:

I don't think you know how an Arduino works. All Arduino models work the same way; they are programmable the same way with the same software. They don't need to make it for only one model, just for the general Arduino and it would work for all Arduinos.

In that case, the only remaining thing for that is covered in your next point.

TCK_Official wrote:

In other words, you wouldn't need to make software for an individual Arduino Model (ex. Arduino Uno) but instead you would need to make one software that would work with the general Arduino and that would work with every other Arduino model because all Arduinos run off of basically the same thing.

TCK_Official wrote:

Hopefully that eleminates points 1, 2, 4, and in your other questions, 1.

It does.

TCK_Official wrote:

As for questions 2, 3, and 4:
2. It depends on how the Micro:Bit extension works. Arduino is an entirely different product and software, so while they could theoretically use a tiny part of the Micro:Bit extension as a base for the Arduino extension, you probably wouldn't be able to salvage much.

It would still be worth seeing if it could theoretically be a blueprint

TCK_Official wrote:

3. Arduinos connect using USB. Arduino itself has an online editor, so it's definitely possible to make the website be able to connect through USB to the Arduino.

That’s definitely an idea for the ST to consider, the only downside being that Micro:Bit is wireless, however Scratchers could decide which to use based off their needs.

TCK_Official wrote:

4. The blocks would be quite a lot. Arduinos native language is a fork of C++, which gives it a but-ton of functions and usage. Therefore, there would need to be quite a bit of blocks in it, but adding a certain set of blocks that can be customizable to an extent could be a possible solution to adding tons of blocks individually.

Perhaps(I don’t own any model) they could give a couple of preset blocks, than allow users to use those, the blocks being able to use the basic functions of them.

TCK_Official wrote:

The icon for it would mostlikely be the Arduino logo.

The ST may need permission for that:

The Arduino logo is a registered trademark and cannot be used by third parties without the trademark owner's authorization. Generally speaking, you cannot use the Arduino Logo (with or without the word Arduino) to identify or advertise your products and/or services. This includes: Compatible products.

source
Perhaps a design of one? Like, a very basic version.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

TCK_Official wrote:

I don't think you know how an Arduino works. All Arduino models work the same way; they are programmable the same way with the same software. They don't need to make it for only one model, just for the general Arduino and it would work for all Arduinos.

In that case, the only remaining thing for that is covered in your next point.

TCK_Official wrote:

In other words, you wouldn't need to make software for an individual Arduino Model (ex. Arduino Uno) but instead you would need to make one software that would work with the general Arduino and that would work with every other Arduino model because all Arduinos run off of basically the same thing.

TCK_Official wrote:

Hopefully that eleminates points 1, 2, 4, and in your other questions, 1.

It does.

TCK_Official wrote:

As for questions 2, 3, and 4:
2. It depends on how the Micro:Bit extension works. Arduino is an entirely different product and software, so while they could theoretically use a tiny part of the Micro:Bit extension as a base for the Arduino extension, you probably wouldn't be able to salvage much.

It would still be worth seeing if it could theoretically be a blueprint

TCK_Official wrote:

3. Arduinos connect using USB. Arduino itself has an online editor, so it's definitely possible to make the website be able to connect through USB to the Arduino.

That’s definitely an idea for the ST to consider, the only downside being that Micro:Bit is wireless, however Scratchers could decide which to use based off their needs.

TCK_Official wrote:

4. The blocks would be quite a lot. Arduinos native language is a fork of C++, which gives it a but-ton of functions and usage. Therefore, there would need to be quite a bit of blocks in it, but adding a certain set of blocks that can be customizable to an extent could be a possible solution to adding tons of blocks individually.

Perhaps(I don’t own any model) they could give a couple of preset blocks, than allow users to use those, the blocks being able to use the basic functions of them.

TCK_Official wrote:

The icon for it would mostlikely be the Arduino logo.

The ST may need permission for that:

The Arduino logo is a registered trademark and cannot be used by third parties without the trademark owner's authorization. Generally speaking, you cannot use the Arduino Logo (with or without the word Arduino) to identify or advertise your products and/or services. This includes: Compatible products.

source
Perhaps a design of one? Like, a very basic version.

Yes, the icon could be modified into something new.

As for the blueprint, again, I am pretty much positive that Micro:Bit doesn't use the same or even similar software to Arduino. The frameworks would be different, really all that could be salvaged is just the basic parts of the extension.

TCK_Official wrote:

The icon for it would mostlikely be the Arduino logo.

The ST may need permission for that:

The Arduino logo is a registered trademark and cannot be used by third parties without the trademark owner's authorization. Generally speaking, you cannot use the Arduino Logo (with or without the word Arduino) to identify or advertise your products and/or services. This includes: Compatible products.

source
Perhaps a design of one? Like, a very basic version.
Yes, the icon could be modified into something new.
Could you make a mockup?

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

TCK_Official wrote:

The icon for it would mostlikely be the Arduino logo.

The ST may need permission for that:

The Arduino logo is a registered trademark and cannot be used by third parties without the trademark owner's authorization. Generally speaking, you cannot use the Arduino Logo (with or without the word Arduino) to identify or advertise your products and/or services. This includes: Compatible products.

source
Perhaps a design of one? Like, a very basic version.

Yes, the icon could be modified into something new.
Could you make a mockup?

https://ibb.co/gV6tGZC
^ Basic Icon Design ^

Bump