Removal of things that have a workaround

robosnakejr

Scratch is full of things that have workarounds.
One example I know is lists, and there are many more.
These blocks just clutter up scratch, and it annoys the heck out of me!
update: I didn't know lists existed on a lot of other programming languages.
Still, there are a lot more workaround blocks we don't need.

Last edited by robosnakejr (Aug. 12, 2014 21:16:22)

;

djdolphin

Noooo! All of the blocks are there for a reason. The mulitplication block is workaroundable, and I don't see it being removed anytime soon.

!

Thepuzzlegame

Lightnin wrote:
It should be easy to climb in and get started with Scratch - even for Scratchers who have no experience programming.

That means we should NOT get rid of blocks like lists as very few scratchers know how to make workarounds for these and it just makes a big hassle for everyone. Sorry, no support.

Last edited by Thepuzzlegame (Aug. 12, 2014 20:43:13)

hi!

TimothyLawyer

A list and its associated blocks do not appear in Scratch until you choose to make a list.

I will leave the workaround as an exercise for the reader.

BeetleBlocks, WatercolorBot, and Turtle Art
Hover over a name or label to translate into current language
When Earth was… Purple ?

☂️

robosnakejr

djdolphin wrote:
Noooo! All of the blocks are there for a reason. The mulitplication block is workaroundable, and I don't see it being removed anytime soon.

They get really annoying…
Why were they even added if we can just make our own?

;

Blueinkproductions

robosnakejr wrote:
djdolphin wrote:
Noooo! All of the blocks are there for a reason. The mulitplication block is workaroundable, and I don't see it being removed anytime soon.
They get really annoying…
Why were they even added if we can just make our own?

I would argue that if anything was to be removed, it would be variables, not lists. Also, lists are one of the few data types that Scratch shares with other programming languages.

tl;dr: could this have been made without lists?

Generation 2: the first time you see this copy and paste it on top of your sig in the scratch forums and increase generation by 1. Social experiment.

____                  _____  _______              
|   \  |     |     | |          |    |\    | | /
|___/  |     |     | |__        |    | \   | |/  
|   \  |     |     | |          |    |  \  | |\   
|    | |     |     | |          |    |   \ | | \  
|___/  L____  \___/  |_____  ___|___ |    \| |  \ 
               PRODUCTIONS

Here's a hint: support = support.

<shameless self promotion>follow me! follow me! follow me! love my stuff! love my stuff! love my stuff! follow me! love my stuff! remix my stuff! follow me! follow me! </shameless self promotion>

AonymousGuy

Let's see, so what blocks are we getting rid of today?
Hmm…

move (10) steps
turn ccw () degrees
turn cw () degrees
point towards [ v]
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
change [ v] effect by (25)
clear graphic effects
change size by ()
switch backdrop to [ v] and wait
next backdrop

play sound [ v] until done
rest for () beats
change volume by ()
change tempo by ()

change pen color by ()
change pen shade by ()
change pen size by ()

etc…

superninja109

Blueinkproductions wrote:
robosnakejr wrote:
djdolphin wrote:
Noooo! All of the blocks are there for a reason. The mulitplication block is workaroundable, and I don't see it being removed anytime soon.
They get really annoying…
Why were they even added if we can just make our own?
I would argue that if anything was to be removed, it would be variables, not lists. Also, lists are one of the few data types that Scratch shares with other programming languages.

tl;dr: could this have been made without lists?

What? variables help me with all my projects and should NOT be removed

Superninja109:) Check out an awesome game HERE
Also check out this awesome studio HERE

Epic fail script:

when green flag clicked
stop [all scripts v]

Firedrake969

Blueinkproductions wrote:
robosnakejr wrote:
djdolphin wrote:
Noooo! All of the blocks are there for a reason. The mulitplication block is workaroundable, and I don't see it being removed anytime soon.
They get really annoying…
Why were they even added if we can just make our own?
I would argue that if anything was to be removed, it would be variables, not lists. Also, lists are one of the few data types that Scratch shares with other programming languages.

tl;dr: could this have been made without lists?

I could make it work with variables in place of lists

(just use a special character for line breaks)

But no support on the removal of lists. They're a key feature in other programming languages too.

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549

gregory9

Thepuzzlegame wrote:
Lightnin wrote:
It should be easy to climb in and get started with Scratch - even for Scratchers who have no experience programming.
That means we should NOT get rid of blocks like lists as very few scratchers know how to make workarounds for these and it just makes a big hassle for everyone. Sorry, no support.

I agree. I don't support either.

Use DuckDuckGo instead of Google, Bing, or Yahoo

Check out Coursacado, and SBX Share!

I am gw90 on GitHub

TheHockeyist

I don't support removing anything. Though might I propose that the

(pick random (1) to (10))

be renamed to

random integer (1) to (10) :: operators // supposed to be round

?

Last edited by TheHockeyist (Aug. 12, 2014 21:36:13)

Firedrake969

TheHockeyist wrote:
I don't support removing anything. Though might I propose that the
(pick random (1) to (10))
be renamed to
(random integer (1) to (10) :: operators) 
?

No support, since if you put non-integers into the inputs it returns a random non-integer value.

Last edited by Firedrake969 (Aug. 12, 2014 21:45:35)

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549

TheHockeyist

Firedrake969 wrote:
TheHockeyist wrote:
I don't support removing anything. Though might I propose that the
(pick random (1) to (10))
be renamed to
(random integer (1) to (10) :: operators) 
?
No support, since if you put non-integers into the inputs it returns a random non-integer value.

I didn't know that. I thought it only accepted integers.

random number (0.4) to (9.7) :: operators // again, supposed to be round

then?

TimothyLawyer

TheHockeyist wrote:
I didn't know that. I thought it only accepted integers.
random number (0.4) to (9.7) :: operators reporter // again, supposed to be round
then?

Ahem.

BeetleBlocks, WatercolorBot, and Turtle Art
Hover over a name or label to translate into current language
When Earth was… Purple ?

☂️

djdolphin

TimothyLawyer wrote:
TheHockeyist wrote:
I didn't know that. I thought it only accepted integers.
random number (0.4) to (9.7) :: operators reporter // again, supposed to be round
then?
Ahem.

Umm… is that supposed to link to a comment simulator rap?

!

NoxSpooth

Okay, let's remove the workaroundable blocks…
Oh, wait, the blocks used for the workaround are also workaroundable!
And the blocks for the workaround of the workaround also have a workaround! …

This is one of the reasons I don't support.

Arrivederci.

TheHockeyist

NoxSpooth wrote:
Okay, let's remove the workaroundable blocks…
Oh, wait, the blocks used for the workaround are also workaroundable!
And the blocks for the workaround of the workaround also have a workaround! …

This is one of the reasons I don't support.

Eventually Scratch will have zero blocks.

stickfiregames

AonymousGuy wrote:

Let's see, so what blocks are we getting rid of today?
Hmm…

move (10) steps
turn ccw () degrees
turn cw () degrees
point towards [ v]
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
change [ v] effect by (25)
clear graphic effects
change size by ()
switch backdrop to [ v] and wait
next backdrop

play sound [ v] until done
rest for () beats
change volume by ()
change tempo by ()

change pen color by ()
change pen shade by ()
change pen size by ()

etc…

This is why I don't support.

If you can read this, my signature cubeupload has been eaten by an evil kumquat!

or you just used Inspect Element, you hacker

;

Deerleg

TheHockeyist wrote:
NoxSpooth wrote:
Okay, let's remove the workaroundable blocks…
Oh, wait, the blocks used for the workaround are also workaroundable!
And the blocks for the workaround of the workaround also have a workaround! …

This is one of the reasons I don't support.

Eventually Scratch will have zero blocks.

That's what we don't want. (Of course not.)
No support.

Chainmanner

EVERYTHING in Scratch can be worked around, but all removing those will do is cause a load of annoyances.

Discuss Scratch