Firedrake969 wrote:

Woah, slow down there. I never said that,…

You quite heavily implied it.

U^ｪ^U::motion//This is Blocky. He lives in my signature. He is a trained attack block. He protects my siggy from kumquats.

Would you please explain how I got to that conclusion? I fail to see how you believe that, as I said “a feature”, not “1000 features”, along with multiple criteria to judge that feature by. You somehow took that one feature (assuming those criteria), took those criteria away, and multiplied my statement by 1000 to come up with your interpretation of my statement. See how that looks? It is completely irrelevant to my argument.

So given that, actually, don't bother explaining it - as just stated, that post isn't a logical counter.

Again, don't set up a straw man (backed by a slippery slope). It won't get you anywhere.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Would you please explain how I got to that conclusion? I fail to see how you believe that, as I said “a feature”, not “1000 features”, along with multiple criteria to judge that feature by.

Well, we could add as many features as we want, because as you said, the new scratchers can just ignore the features, or they can ask questions to learn about them. What about that is incorrect? I do not see how I misrepresented your argument, as you clearly stated that new scratchers could either ignore the suggestion or ask questions. All I am doing is applying your logic to another case.

U^ｪ^U::motion//This is Blocky. He lives in my signature. He is a trained attack block. He protects my siggy from kumquats.

I stipulated "It depends on the blocks, their purposes, their functions“. Please try to read my whole post (if you haven't, which seems like that since you left out that part of my argument)
Notice that part of my writing. Your application of my logic is incorrect - you just stated ”1000 blocks“ without giving examples of 1000 actual blocks that could have good purposes/functions to be added (which there definitely aren't 1000 of, lol).
This is a highly specific case (OOP concepts) that is fleshed out, not a general theoretical thing that ”oh, this could happen, but there's no real reason for it to" (as given in your example).

DaSpudLord, please stop shooting down programming ideas just because you don't understand them, and therefore believe that they are too challenging for Scratch. Make an effort to grasp the concept, and once you're familiar with it, if you still think that it's too much for Scratch, do say so, with a logical reason. However, I've seen you often immediately no-support programming suggestions which you haven't learned, without attempting to understand it, and continuously oppose it. Many users feel upset by your posts.

EDIT: Fixed typo

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord, please stop shooting down programming ideas just because you don't understand them, and therefore believe that they are too challenging for Scratch. Make an effort to grasp the concept, and once you're familiar with it, if you still think that it's too much for Scratch, do say so, with a logical reason. However, I've seen you often immediately no-support programming suggestions which you haven't learned, without attempting to understand it, and continuously oppose it. Many users feel upset by your posts.

Ow. Haha.

EXACTLY, though. Dictionaries? Not a programming concept in Scratch, so let's not add it. Same with this. It seems like a pattern with a lot of programming concepts (i.e. not changes to the site/editor) that are suggested…

Okay, yeah, you're probably right FireDrake969.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord, please stop shooting down programming ideas just because you don't understand them, and therefore believe that they are too challenging for Scratch. Make an effort to grasp the concept, and once you're familiar with it, if you still think that it's too much for Scratch, do say so, with a logical reason. However, I've seen you often immediately no-support programming suggestions which you haven't learned, without attempting to understand it, and continuously oppose it. Many users feel upset by your posts.

Ow. Haha.

EXACTLY, though. Dictionaries? Not a programming concept in Scratch, so let's not add it. Same with this. It seems like a pattern with a lot of programming concepts (i.e. not changes to the site/editor) that are suggested…

Okay, let me get one thing straight, because I'm kind of tired of people using the “stop being stopid” argument against my no supports.

I never said I didn't understand the suggestion. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I do understand the suggestion. I know what object oriented programming is. I know what hash maps/dictionaries are. I know what multidimensional arrays are. I don't believe that these concepts are too complicated for Scratch because I fail to understand them. I believe that these concepts are too complicated for Scratch because I understand them completely, but I feel like the average Scratcher would not (although I am warming up to hash maps, and I semi-supported this, not no support). You guys all assume that everyone is as smart as we are and would immediately understand any programming concept we throw at them, but I feel like you guys under-represent a large part of the Scratch community when you say that. Have you been through the Recently Shared Projects section recently? In case you haven't noticed, most of the projects that pass through there aren't that complex, and by the looks of things in there, it doesn't exactly look like the majority of Scratchers are as good as you assume they are.

U^ｪ^U::motion//This is Blocky. He lives in my signature. He is a trained attack block. He protects my siggy from kumquats.

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

Hash maps are as simple as referring to costumes with names rather than numbers.

switch costume to [costume2 v]

vs

switch costume to ((1) + (1))

Are these easy to understand?

Do you fully understand OOP? It is basically a way to encapsulate a group of related values under one variable, and designing methods to operate on them.

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming languages and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

U^ｪ^U::motion//This is Blocky. He lives in my signature. He is a trained attack block. He protects my siggy from kumquats.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming language and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

We do. The problem is that Scratch does not fully prepare people for those languages. Scratch needs to teach people the concepts that they need to know to understand those languages. Python and C++, the languages that you listed, are both object-oriented.

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming language and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

We do. The problem is that Scratch does not fully prepare people for those languages. Scratch needs to teach people the concepts that they need to know to understand those languages. Python and C++, the languages that you listed, are both object-oriented.

^

Also, I didn't mean moving on to other languages - I actually meant understanding programming concepts. Another example of me being misinterpreted

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming language and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

We do. The problem is that Scratch does not fully prepare people for those languages. Scratch needs to teach people the concepts that they need to know to understand those languages. Python and C++, the languages that you listed, are both object-oriented.

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

U^ｪ^U::motion//This is Blocky. He lives in my signature. He is a trained attack block. He protects my siggy from kumquats.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming language and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

We do. The problem is that Scratch does not fully prepare people for those languages. Scratch needs to teach people the concepts that they need to know to understand those languages. Python and C++, the languages that you listed, are both object-oriented.

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

How is object-oriented programming in its simplest form confusing? Would you rather have people be confused in languages where they have to deal with syntax errors as well?

DaSpudLord wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

And your mindset to “keep things simple because they only can do simple things” just holds them back.
That mindset is destructive.

How am I holding them back from moving on to other languages? Isn't that what Scratch is supposed to do? Scratch is not meant to be a complex or professional language, it's meant to be a bridge between no programming language and actually complex or professional language like Python or C++. I wish you guys would remember that sometimes.

We do. The problem is that Scratch does not fully prepare people for those languages. Scratch needs to teach people the concepts that they need to know to understand those languages. Python and C++, the languages that you listed, are both object-oriented.

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

Can you give reasons why you think that it's confusing?

DaSpudLord wrote:

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

DaSpudLord, are you terrified of learning new, challenging things? You seem awfully dissentious on anything, even contradicting yourself at times. I've seen you strike down ideas considered too easy to replicate with a workaround, on the basis that the student should learn to program it the hard way. I've also seen you strike down ideas considered “too confusing”, on the basis that the student would be unable to learn to program with it anyways. And I've also seen you strike down ideas that are downright trivial, with no clear basis at all other than you don't see a reason to support it.

Your rhetoric sometimes makes no sense. This is confusing, that is confusing, to who? Scratch is targeted for ages 8-16, but it's not like kids on the younger half tremble in fear of the sine function. If they don't understand it, they don't have to use it. Nobody enters a programming language knowing what every little function does until they learn about it on their own accord.

You do make some sense, however, when saying that Scratch is holding back. In Scratch's philosophy, it is not meant to hand over every single function from programming languages, but neither should it suppress functionality to a bare minimum. There is some leeway needed to allow creativity to flourish. You must remember too, that not all programming languages are created equal - some programming languages have advantages over others. Scratch is no different when it comes to reaching a compromise because it must sacrifice certain functions to preserve its philosophy of being an introductory language, one that encourages the programmer to seek alternatives and spark “aha” moments.

Your last paragraph makes me wonder what Scratch would be like if it had list comprehensions

Firedrake969 wrote:

Your last paragraph makes me wonder what Scratch would be like if it had list comprehensions

*Searches up list comprehensions*

Ah, so they construct a list based on a rule. I could easily write a block for that in Snap!, which shows where it succeeds when Scratch fails.

refer downwards

go [in front of v] sprite [sprite1 v] :: looks

DaSpudLord wrote:

So we should prepare them by confusing the heck out of them?

Scratch is going to confuse the heck out of beginners no matter how simple we make it. Like nobody is born knowing their abc's, scratch itself cannot be a 100% grab and go thing. Why else would the Tips menu exist?

You're confusing them by restricting their access to advanced functions as well. When they finally to encounter these, bad programming practices they might've picked up from scratch restrict their ability to learn and perform even more than if they'd started from a higher floor, as if you'd damaged the ladder to the top.

or for comparison, take every letter out of the alphabet but A B and C. It's easy to learn those three… but then trying to make more complex things like words out of them becomes harder (nearly impossible) which simply raises the low floor even more than having the full set… it's creating the illusion of a low floor that really doesn't exist. And that's bad

TL;DR: Irrelevant semi-textwall

Essentially you're saying the newcomers here are too unintelligent to understand something as simple as putting toys in a box based on their color

go [in front of v] sprite [sprite1 v] :: looks