Hi All.

Scratch! development team most often refuses to add proposed functionalities, due to the fact that they are “workarounable”.
This with the well-understandable and definitely valid concern that new scratchers better learn how to build the functionality from.. scratch. OK.

That is why I propose that the digit “7” should be suppressed and should not be used no more in any value of any block.
Reason is: 7 is actually 3+4 (or 4+3, or 1+6 to my knowledge); so we definitely don't need the digit 7 cause it's easily workaroundable.

Moreover, 7 is considered in many religions like a sacred, holy digit.
Scratch! aiming to keep respectful with its community, should by all means prevent users from using a sacred digit. It's a question of respect.
Remember that people of many different ages and backgrounds will see what you’ve shared !

So I propose to disable the “7” keyboard key by some way.
In the mean time that Scratch! development team will implement the correction (which probably will be fast, as usual), I suggest that we all simple Scratch! developers replace the digit “7” in our code, by an easy workaround.

Greetz.

Dimitri

Support. In fact, why not just remove all digits except one? Or better, replace numbers with tally sticks. We're getting away from the true origin and point of math!

Support on liam48D's definitely better solution. Let's teach kids how to compute before teaching them about computers.

I'm guessing this is a joke made to prove a point…? At least I'm hoping it is…

I see your point.

The manifestation of Scratch's bugginess was really when I was making my cloud multiplayer engine, and the equals block literally didn't give the correct answer. It would tell me that 2 large cloud numbers were equal even if they clearly weren't, and it took me HOURS to debug my project and find this.

Ironic, since Scratch is supposedly making programming easier.

Eliminate all numerical inputs except for 0 and 1. Also take away the forums and all other inputs besides 0 and 1 because that way people can't communicate and offend one another. THE GODS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND PROGRAMMING LAW DEMAND IT.

Please tell me the original post was a joke.

How about stop using these lazy machines you call “computers”. Use a rock, chisel and some twigs. That's real programming right there.

Support, why not?

Support! why not also remove 2,3,4,5,6,8, and 9? and remove the

<not <>>

block because its workarounded by

<[false] = [ ]>

heck lets remove every workaroundable thing in scratch while we are at it

chuckdaboss wrote:

Support! why not also remove 2,3,4,5,6,8, and 9? and remove the

<not <>>

block because its workarounded by

<[false] = [ ]>

heck lets remove every workaroundable thing in scratch while we are at it

Just don't go there man. That's been done like a thousand times.

Zro716 wrote:

How about stop using these lazy machines you call “computers”. Use a rock, chisel and some twigs. That's real programming right there.

lol
In fact, why don't we remove all of these blocks, because they are workaroundable, after all-

move () steps
turn ccw () degrees
turn cw () degrees
go to [ v]
glide () secs to x: (0) y: (0)
change x by ()
set x to ()
change y by ()
set y to ()
say [] for (2) secs
think [] for (2) secs
next costume
clear graphic effects
change size by ()
switch backdrop to [ v] and wait
next backdrop
play sound [ v] until done
change volume by ()
change tempo by ()
change pen color by ()
set pen color to ()
change pen shade by ()
change pen size by ()

when [ v] key pressed

when this sprite clicked

when backdrop switches to [ v]

when [ v] > (10)

when I receive [ v]
broadcast [ v]
broadcast [ v] and wait
repeat ()
    
end
forever
    
end//Interesting...
wait until <>
(distance to [ v])
ask [] and wait
(answer)
(timer)
reset timer
([ v] of [  v])
(days since 2000)
(() - ())
(() * ())
(() / ())
<not <>>
(length of [])
(round ())
change [ v] by (0)
add [] to [  v]
replace item ( v) of [  v] with [ ]
<[ v] contains [ ]>

… sure these blocks could be removed, DaSpudLord. Specially if there is a chance that they get used together with the digit 7.

Happy to see that I'm dealing with serious, rational, reasonable, senseful people.

Greetz.

Dimitri

Support! All the digits have easy workarounds, and I think that people should be learning how to do stuff themselves.
All you need to do with the number 7 is this short workaround:

(((((((1) + (1)) + (1)) + (1)) + (1)) + (1)) + (1))

And if you want the number 73, then simply do this:

((((((((((10) + (10)) + (10)) + (10)) + (10)) + (10)) + (10)) + (1)) + (1)) + (1))

Removing all digits except 1 and 0 would surely make Scratch better, especially for younger children or new scratchers.

…Seriously?

This has got to be a joke. Even cultures where the number 7 (or any number) is sacred are okay with having it typed out on a computer screen or printed on signs and license plates or as page numbers in books. I do not feel that your argument is justified.

TheHockeyist wrote:

…Seriously?

This has got to be a joke. Even cultures where the number 7 (or any number) is sacred are okay with having it typed out on a computer screen or printed on signs and license plates or as page numbers in books. I do not feel that your argument is justified.

Don't worry, I think it was a joke about how people always use workarounds as excuses for a suggestion not to happen. xD But imagine if the Scratch Team actually decided to do this…

I saw this topic in the morning, but I had to go to school and couldn't respond. The response from other posters has been better than I expected; I thought it would become a “workarounds teach people programming!11!” flame war.

Nice satire. Well played, Dimitrip. I have been very frustrated by the amount of forum posters who no-support a perfectly useful suggestion just because it is workaround able, without considering its merits.

I wouldn't really say that the Scratch Team chooses not to implement suggestions because they are workaround able. They wish to keep Scratch simple, so beginners wouldn't be intimidated. However, many of Scratch's existing features aren't exactly easy to understand at first, and adding some workaroundable suggestions, such as value-returning custom blocks, would make Scratch programming more efficient

DaSpudLord wrote:

I'm guessing this is a joke made to prove a point…? At least I'm hoping it is…

Yes, it is. This topic is a message toward people who no-support workaroundable yet helpful suggestions.

TheHockeyist wrote:

…Seriously?

This has got to be a joke. Even cultures where the number 7 (or any number) is sacred are okay with having it typed out on a computer screen or printed on signs and license plates or as page numbers in books. I do not feel that your argument is justified.

Of course this topic is a joke.

EDIT: Nooo I got ninja'd!!!!

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

I saw this topic in the morning, but I had to go to school and couldn't respond. The response from other posters has been better than I expected; I thought it would become a “workarounds teach people programming!11!” flame war.

Nice satire. Well played, Dimitrip. I have been very frustrated by the amount of forum posters who no-support a perfectly useful suggestion just because it is workaround able, without considering its merits.

I wouldn't really say that the Scratch Team chooses not to implement suggestions because they are workaround able. They wish to keep Scratch simple, so beginners wouldn't be intimidated. However, many of Scratch's existing features aren't exactly easy to understand at first, and adding some workaroundable suggestions, such as value-returning custom blocks, would make Scratch programming more efficient

DaSpudLord wrote:

I'm guessing this is a joke made to prove a point…? At least I'm hoping it is…

Yes, it is. This topic is a message toward people who no-support workaroundable yet helpful suggestions.

TheHockeyist wrote:

…Seriously?

This has got to be a joke. Even cultures where the number 7 (or any number) is sacred are okay with having it typed out on a computer screen or printed on signs and license plates or as page numbers in books. I do not feel that your argument is justified.

Of course this topic is a joke.

EDIT: Nooo I got ninja'd!!!!

Woah man just because we only post 2 or 3 words doesn't mean we put tons of thought into our posts man! I hate how people like you assume the quality of my posts just from the words in it, man!

ChocolatePi wrote:

Woah man just because we only post 2 or 3 words doesn't mean we put tons of thought into our posts man! I hate how people like you assume the quality of my posts just from the words in it, man!

??? What does my post have to do with the quantity and quality of your posts?

I have a better suggestion: The only digits we really need are 0 and 1. Down at the machine level, numbers are represented in binary. By programming the workarounds, Scratchers will learn basic computer engineering! Numbers, Booleans, characters and all other forms of data are really binary. Let's use 1s and 0s!

Real programmers don't even bother with a computer or a programming language - they do it all in their heads with just the mental image of a one and a zero

This topic is a nice parody of a suggestion topic - and it makes a valid point about rejecting suggestions simply because there is a work-around. That's not necessarily a good reason to reject. Instead, go back to the design goals of Scratch - easy to learn but capable of a wide variety of creations. Low floor, high ceiling and wide walls.

Closing because this is not an actual suggestion.