__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

blablablahello wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

snip-
I think at this point it would be easier to switch over to an entirely different language then have st add this and need to learn it

Agreed. My main point is that although this suggestion might be slightly helpful, it overlaps with too much of clones and local variables to be worth it to add. If people really wanted/needed this, editing clones would be a better choice

Another point comes though, that would make kids adapt to other programming languages really hard. They would be used to using this alternative method and they might implement some stuff in not recommended ways, yes it's already hard for kids to adapt to text-based programming but blocks map to functions easily like say maps to print and so on, the main issue is that more broader concepts like modules or classes kids don't understand. This would make that way easier and would strengthen that understanding also see this which could also make this very useful:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Surprisingly, this is getting support. One thing I will add to this is that there should probably be a way to nest structures because it makes sense that containers can have containers that have containers and so on because the kids probably know from the physical world that things can nest and that would actually help a thousand times more with complex projects. Like if you could do this:

< [habitat v] of < [animal v] of [myrabbit v] :: looks > :: looks >

Maybe this is too complex though, I am not really sure.

(too hard to snip lol)
Below is more opinion based:
I dont believe scratch is a good way to learn functions, objects, or anything of that similarity. Scratch is better at teaching the way of thinking needed to program (as in, thinking like a computer rather then a human), and not as much so at concepts. I personally only understood how scratch functions worked AFTER learning functions in python, and due to limitations of scratch, I dont believe that these concepts, even if correctly replicated, would be understood by anyone who didn't already know them.

TL: DR better to learn objects elsewhere as scratch isn't the best at teaching specific things

blablablahello wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

blablablahello wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

snip-
I think at this point it would be easier to switch over to an entirely different language then have st add this and need to learn it

Agreed. My main point is that although this suggestion might be slightly helpful, it overlaps with too much of clones and local variables to be worth it to add. If people really wanted/needed this, editing clones would be a better choice

Another point comes though, that would make kids adapt to other programming languages really hard. They would be used to using this alternative method and they might implement some stuff in not recommended ways, yes it's already hard for kids to adapt to text-based programming but blocks map to functions easily like say maps to print and so on, the main issue is that more broader concepts like modules or classes kids don't understand. This would make that way easier and would strengthen that understanding also see this which could also make this very useful:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Surprisingly, this is getting support. One thing I will add to this is that there should probably be a way to nest structures because it makes sense that containers can have containers that have containers and so on because the kids probably know from the physical world that things can nest and that would actually help a thousand times more with complex projects. Like if you could do this:

< [habitat v] of < [animal v] of [myrabbit v] :: looks > :: looks >

Maybe this is too complex though, I am not really sure.

(too hard to snip lol)
Below is more opinion based:
I dont believe scratch is a good way to learn functions, objects, or anything of that similarity. Scratch is better at teaching the way of thinking needed to program (as in, thinking like a computer rather then a human), and not as much so at concepts. I personally only understood how scratch functions worked AFTER learning functions in python, and due to limitations of scratch, I dont believe that these concepts, even if correctly replicated, would be understood by anyone who didn't already know them.

TL: DR better to learn objects elsewhere as scratch isn't the best at teaching specific things

Scratch is supposed to be an introductory programming language to explain the simplest programming to kids, these concepts can be applied in a beginner friendly way and are so crucial to programming that they should be explained in Scratch, Scratch is't meant to just teach the way of thinking how to program, that was never said, it is supposed to explain programming to kids at a simple level, now that is vague like what simple level are we talking about here but I think classes or structures (C does have structures, not classes) are so fundamental to programming that they are part of programming and that would be excluding a part of programming, they can be simplified to kids but not including them at all would miss a major part of programming that wouldn't be explained to kids through Scratch which is a language designed for explaining programming to kids.