GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

This topic should have been closed eons ago, as my self and lost’s of other people have given correct answers. This topic is still open for incompetent people continuing on the topic, refusing to take this stuff as an answer.

False.
It's a valid suggestion. Not a question.
Times change, and this has not been rejected. And no, talk on why it was removed isn't a reason for rejection.
Scratch can make it into the App Store, as it's exempt to the reason it was initially removed.
Additionally, quit acting like others who give a different answer, or discuss differently, are incompetent.

“Who Discuss Differently” pfff this topic has already been answered, there are only two definitive answers, from both NOW and back THEN.

False.
Did you not look at the subforum? This ain't a question. It's a suggestion. Ain't no answer.
Are you viewing your answer as Gospel? Are you saying that Scratch isn't an exemption to the rule that got it removed in the first place? Are you saying that it's ineligible for being added to the App Store?
All of the above are false. You haven't the power to reject a suggestion.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

Malicondi wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

They're not speaking as they're a higher power or above you, it's a simple fact. Suggestions don't get closed unless it is a dupe, implemented, or rejected, with a few exceptions, but this isn't a topic in Questions about Scratch, so it can't be “answered” or “solved” therefore should stay open.

Let's not start an argument and leave it at that.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

But then you’re refusing to have an answer. Look at time as your answer, and think of how long this thread has existed for.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is an answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Malicondi wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

They're not speaking as they're a higher power or above you, it's a simple fact. Suggestions don't get closed unless it is a dupe, implemented, or rejected, with a few exceptions, but this isn't a topic in Questions about Scratch, so it can't be “answered” or “solved” therefore should stay open.

Let's not start an argument and leave it at that.

But then you’re refusing to have an answer. Look at time as your answer, and think of how long this thread has existed for.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is an answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

I see that one is capable of digging their heels in greatly once they've been disproven.
Could you directly address my claim rather then make up falsehoods? Scratch can still make it into iOS. Your statements merely show your opinions, rather then facts.
Maybe I don't have higher power then you. But the inverse is also true.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Malicondi wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

They're not speaking as they're a higher power or above you, it's a simple fact. Suggestions don't get closed unless it is a dupe, implemented, or rejected, with a few exceptions, but this isn't a topic in Questions about Scratch, so it can't be “answered” or “solved” therefore should stay open.

Let's not start an argument and leave it at that.

But then you’re refusing to have an answer. Look at time as your answer, and think of how long this thread has existed for.

What is there to answer? A suggestion is an idea, rather then a question.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is an answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

I see that one is capable of digging their heels in greatly once they've been disproven.
Could you directly address my claim rather then make up falsehoods? Scratch can still make it into iOS. Your statements merely show your opinions, rather then facts.
Maybe I don't have higher power then you. But the inverse is also true.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Malicondi wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

They're not speaking as they're a higher power or above you, it's a simple fact. Suggestions don't get closed unless it is a dupe, implemented, or rejected, with a few exceptions, but this isn't a topic in Questions about Scratch, so it can't be “answered” or “solved” therefore should stay open.

Let's not start an argument and leave it at that.

But then you’re refusing to have an answer. Look at time as your answer, and think of how long this thread has existed for.

What is there to answer? A suggestion is an idea, rather then a question.

A suggestion is an idea, but that idea will eventually vanish as time passes by. The original was taken down years ago but also what the hell is the point, the website works just fine, and an offline editor works fine on turbowarp if you visit the site frequently enough.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is an answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

I see that one is capable of digging their heels in greatly once they've been disproven.
Could you directly address my claim rather then make up falsehoods? Scratch can still make it into iOS. Your statements merely show your opinions, rather then facts.
Maybe I don't have higher power then you. But the inverse is also true.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Malicondi wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

You’re speaking as you have higher authority than me, but that is far from true. Are you taking an answer as a suggestion? Do you not believe that a definitive answer is possible? There is answers to everything in life and this was answered eons ago.

They're not speaking as they're a higher power or above you, it's a simple fact. Suggestions don't get closed unless it is a dupe, implemented, or rejected, with a few exceptions, but this isn't a topic in Questions about Scratch, so it can't be “answered” or “solved” therefore should stay open.

Let's not start an argument and leave it at that.

But then you’re refusing to have an answer. Look at time as your answer, and think of how long this thread has existed for.

What is there to answer? A suggestion is an idea, rather then a question.

A suggestion is an idea, but that idea will eventually vanish as time passes by. The original was taken down years ago but also what the hell is the point, the website works just fine, and an offline editor works fine on turbowarp if you visit the site frequently enough.

If the sites just fine, why not leave it as is?
If your view is to not have an iOS offline editor, which would be incredibly easy for them to develop, then please prove why it wouldn't work.
This idea obviously ain't dead. Why rely on a third party product for something that should be provided by the initial website?

PyraEthan12 wrote:

“Why rely on a third party product for something that should be provided by the initial website”? Because the first party website still hasn’t provided it over a decade later.

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

supersonic61223 wrote:

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

Read this I beg of you this is so annoying to look at just read this and get over it. The Scratch Team could make an iOS/iPadOS app at almost any time they wanted, they just need the time to do so which I'm pretty sure they do considering they can update Scratch to remove exploits in enough time where little to no one is affected.

starlightsparker wrote:

Wait the App Store allows coding apps now?

starlightsparker wrote:

supersonic61223 wrote:

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

Read this I beg of you this is so annoying to look at just read this and get over it. The Scratch Team could make an iOS/iPadOS app at almost any time they wanted, they just need the time to do so which I'm pretty sure they do considering they can update Scratch to remove exploits in enough time where little to no one is affected.

Wait the App Store allows coding apps now? I had no idea-
But I just remembered a few months ago I downloaded the mobile python app on this iPad so it’s true. I hope scratch can make an app then. It might still be a lot of work, not sure

Really, Really, Really old post but support.
The requirement that forbids Apps from running code is moot because:

Apple wrote:

App Store Review Guidelines

2. Performance
…..

You wrote a long message so i shortened it.

It is on iOS already but as a website, so sometimes you'll have to re-login!
What the Original Point (OP) has said was on iOS but what they meant was on iOS as
an app!

However when ST tried to add it as an app, AppStore took it down because it's an app for modifying code
and it would glitch a lot…

BUT us iOS users use it on the web as it ain't that hard to open it, It would be easier if there was an app
but there isn't :c

If you read this much thanks for reading <3

supersonic61223 wrote:

(#390)

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

Read this I beg of you this is so annoying to look at just read this and get over it. The Scratch Team could make an iOS/iPadOS app at almost any time they wanted, they just need the time to do so which I'm pretty sure they do considering they can update Scratch to remove exploits in enough time where little to no one is affected.

scratchusername40 wrote:

supersonic61223 wrote:

(#390)

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

Read this I beg of you this is so annoying to look at just read this and get over it. The Scratch Team could make an iOS/iPadOS app at almost any time they wanted, they just need the time to do so which I'm pretty sure they do considering they can update Scratch to remove exploits in enough time where little to no one is affected.

Yeah, this thread is kind of going in circles. There's no technical or legal reason why they can't do it, they just haven't gotten around to it.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

scratchusername40 wrote:

supersonic61223 wrote:

(#390)

scratchusername40 wrote:

I am an iOS developer, Apple enthusiast, and web developer so I feel like I am qualified to comment on this.
First of all, the App Store guidelines do not block Scratch from making an iOS/iPadOS app. That was changed a while ago, and you can find all sorts of apps that allow coding in much more powerful languages.
And, they literally have the ScratchJr app which came out after the Scratch Viewer app was removed from the store. So the entire debate is literally null.

As for the development needed, there are several options you could take. Scratch runs as a React web app right now. React has a variant called React Native which is used for native development. It's not easy to transfer from React to RN, but it's definitely not starting from zero. There's also Cordova which, while probably not ideal, will build a native app directly from the current codebase in a few minutes. Finally, they could start from scratch (pun intended) and build a native Swift and SwiftUI app, which would be massive ordeal. The Scratch Team would probably use React Native if I had to guess.

There's no real reason why they haven't done this already other than it's not their priority. The ST could easily do this if they wanted. They probably want to do it. It just isn't a priority for them.
(Also, Scratch Team, if you're reading this, I will contribute to a native SwiftUI app if you make one!)

Read this I beg of you this is so annoying to look at just read this and get over it. The Scratch Team could make an iOS/iPadOS app at almost any time they wanted, they just need the time to do so which I'm pretty sure they do considering they can update Scratch to remove exploits in enough time where little to no one is affected.

Yeah, this thread is kind of going in circles. There's no technical or legal reason why they can't do it, they just haven't gotten around to it.

I personally think ST just doesn’t care, as Scratch is also available on the Mac App Store, plus it would be too much effort regarding how the website works just fine.