I can't help but debate about whether or not custom block definitions should really be counted as scripts. For example if someone made a 1s1s and needed a custom block for it, it would become a 1s2s project because of the custom block definition.

Then again, someone could easily exploit this if they were not considered scripts by making a massive amount of block definitions and calling their project “1s1s”.

What are your thoughts?

Well, since it can clearly be replicated by putting the definition script right into the 1 script, I say it doesn't count… Unless you run without screen refresh, because that is not functional without using a custom block. But it's debatable

Same with cloning…. but that's another topic.

turkey took the words out of my mouth. :O xD

Before this topic, I would've said that anything with it's own hat block is a script, but custom blocks are a way to make your own blocks, not entire scripts, so I say no, it isn't a script. This should make it much easier to make 1s1s projects, if used correctly, and so I'm curious how 1s1s projects will come out in the future.

With regards,

ErnieParke

No, I would say not. Custom blocks are much more comparable to a separate block rather than a new script. A comparable analogue from other languages would be the comparison between a function/procedure and an entirely new file that's part of the same project.

I think not. Custom blocks aren't exactly scripts. Sure, they start with a hat block, but the hat block doesn't respond to events like all of the others. I like Harakou's analogy, custom block is to function as script is to file.

scimonster wrote:

I think not. Custom blocks aren't exactly scripts. Sure, they start with a hat block, but the hat block doesn't respond to events like all of the others. I like Harakou's analogy, custom block is to function as script is to file.

It seems a lot of people are in vote of custom blocks not being scripts. I thought this would be the case, but they still are considered scripts in scratch projects. Sci, is there any way you could bring this debate to the ST?

Zparx wrote:

scimonster wrote:

I think not. Custom blocks aren't exactly scripts. Sure, they start with a hat block, but the hat block doesn't respond to events like all of the others. I like Harakou's analogy, custom block is to function as script is to file.

It seems a lot of people are in vote of custom blocks not being scripts. I thought this would be the case, but they still are considered scripts in scratch projects. Sci, is there any way you could bring this debate to the ST?

Possibly.

EDIT: Lightnin said to ask @johnm, the lead programmer. I'll leave that to you, Zparx, because it's your topic.

scimonster wrote:

Zparx wrote:

scimonster wrote:

I think not. Custom blocks aren't exactly scripts. Sure, they start with a hat block, but the hat block doesn't respond to events like all of the others. I like Harakou's analogy, custom block is to function as script is to file.

It seems a lot of people are in vote of custom blocks not being scripts. I thought this would be the case, but they still are considered scripts in scratch projects. Sci, is there any way you could bring this debate to the ST?

Possibly.

EDIT: Lightnin said to ask @johnm, the lead programmer. I'll leave that to you, Zparx, because it's your topic.

Woohoo! I'll get right on it!

IMHO, the fixation on making 1S1S projects shouldn't be further fueled by having the ST spend a second encouraging them. All 1S1S projects of any significant size are very difficult to read, and don't take advantage of the many wonderful features of 2.0.

I would say that custom block definitions shouldn't be scripts, but 1s1s's aren't all that important…

Still a good idea though!

I would say support, but its not in suggestions.
(hint hint)

Yeah, it should be a suggestion. It's about half a suggestion and half a question about scratch.

scubajerry wrote:

IMHO, the fixation on making 1S1S projects shouldn't be further fueled by having the ST spend a second encouraging them. All 1S1S projects of any significant size are very difficult to read, and don't take advantage of the many wonderful features of 2.0.

Guys, the 1s1s was merely an example of my point.

Zparx wrote:

scubajerry wrote:

IMHO, the fixation on making 1S1S projects shouldn't be further fueled by having the ST spend a second encouraging them. All 1S1S projects of any significant size are very difficult to read, and don't take advantage of the many wonderful features of 2.0.

Guys, the 1s1s was merely an example of my point.

But if not for 1S1S, what does it truely matter?

scubajerry wrote:

Zparx wrote:

scubajerry wrote:

IMHO, the fixation on making 1S1S projects shouldn't be further fueled by having the ST spend a second encouraging them. All 1S1S projects of any significant size are very difficult to read, and don't take advantage of the many wonderful features of 2.0.

Guys, the 1s1s was merely an example of my point.

But if not for 1S1S, what does it truely matter?

Just to serve as an example. It can really apply to an project, and if this does become a rule of sorts, then the counter for the # of scripts in each project needs to be updated, not just for 1s1s projects.

With regards,

ErnieParke

well firstly i think that compromising performance for the sake of making a project 1s1s is pointless anyway

and if it matters that much, then you don't have to make a custom block, you can just clone the multiple blocks which would make up the custom block and use those

but to answer to question then i don't think they should, for the reasons already posted

Maybe list blocks separately? I used them in my Pong project, and I called it 1s1s1c6b (1 sprite, 1 script, 1 costume, and 6 blocks).

In terms of implementation, they're definitely scripts. They're stored in the Scratch file in the exact same way as scripts are; the file format sees definition hats as just another kind of Scratch block.

That's the answer johnm might give you.