Discuss Scratch

RPFluffy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

I have made a project here:
The Unknown Workarounds!

Nothing Is EVER 100%, that is just an assumption.















Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people.
My “..” and “…” are not spelling mistakes, it means that they are ways of telling someone that I can continue more about it and that the sentence isn't ended the best way. I like putting new indents and lines so I can split up what I am talking about.




































Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people. Check this MMO out! Kiwi = Support WHAT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE: Through the drop down ;)
if <> :: control cstart

else :: control
end
Alberknyis
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Workarounds use more blocks, which takes down fps. They're creative and help you learn, but they're not useful for actual scripts.

stop [all v] ::stack
RPFluffy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Alberknyis wrote:

Workarounds use more blocks, which takes down fps. They're creative and help you learn, but they're not useful for actual scripts.
That's not true because workarounds can get very specific so you can get a workaround to be able to do very exact and creative things. Unlike some new blocks that do the work for you.

Nothing Is EVER 100%, that is just an assumption.















Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people.
My “..” and “…” are not spelling mistakes, it means that they are ways of telling someone that I can continue more about it and that the sentence isn't ended the best way. I like putting new indents and lines so I can split up what I am talking about.




































Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people. Check this MMO out! Kiwi = Support WHAT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE: Through the drop down ;)
if <> :: control cstart

else :: control
end
Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

RPFluffy wrote:

REALLY like this, these workarounds would help others' make more exact detailed blocks.. if you know what I mean!
I guess these could help people understand what the blocks would do, but that was not my point.
peppermintpatty5
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

I'm making a project that will cover ALL workarounds.
It would be the version of Scratch that I would love to see. Should be done in a few days.


#BringBackDiscuss
Alberknyis
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

RPFluffy wrote:

Alberknyis wrote:

Workarounds use more blocks, which takes down fps. They're creative and help you learn, but they're not useful for actual scripts.
That's not true because workarounds can get very specific so you can get a workaround to be able to do very exact and creative things. Unlike some new blocks that do the work for you.

Sometimes.

stop [all v] ::stack
TechnoDriveX
Scratcher
56 posts

Work-arounds

Cyoce wrote:

First off, your sig is wrong, because if something can be remade (“Work arounded”) then it is not being invalidated. It is being made. So there :V
Secondly, basic mathematical functions are a core function of all programming languages, so using that a point is silly. Steps workaround is large, sure… but you realize that that's why it's a thing.
  1. Re-Check my signature.
  2. I’ve seen larger work-arounds than the steps work-arounds in stead of an explanation for their “no support”.


That's because they aren't as important as steps to many projects.

@ShadowFlareX
test account.
I said I wouldn't make good art here, but I… I lied.
Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

TechnoDriveX wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

First off, your sig is wrong, because if something can be remade (“Work arounded”) then it is not being invalidated. It is being made. So there :V
Secondly, basic mathematical functions are a core function of all programming languages, so using that a point is silly. Steps workaround is large, sure… but you realize that that's why it's a thing.
  1. Re-Check my signature.
  2. I’ve seen larger work-arounds than the steps work-arounds in stead of an explanation for their “no support”.

That's because they aren't as important as steps to many projects.
Still, theoretically having a work-around should not immediately constitute a -1. At least say “it has a low work-around complexity to usefulness ratio’.
VoltageGames
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Scratch is made for 8 year olds.
I doubt 8 years know much about how subtracting a negative makes a positive.
And why would 8 years olds use complicated work arounds when they could use
change x by ()
?

I have a sneaking suspicion you might have made this post because of seeing your own suggestions shot down for work arounds. Am I right, or no?

i3-6100 / r9 380 / 8 gigs ram / 1 tb hdd

Click here to inflate my ego and thank me for my posts.


Firedrake969
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

peppermintpatty5 wrote:

I'm making a project that will cover ALL workarounds.
It would be the version of Scratch that I would love to see. Should be done in a few days.
“jump 5 feet, then attack enemy until dead”
“launch rocket from planet X at 100 ft/s and at an initial height of 500 m with a gravity constant of -5 ft/s”

All?

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549
lalala3
Scratcher
100+ posts

Work-arounds

VoltageGames wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion you might have made this post because of seeing your own suggestions shot down for work arounds. Am I right, or no?
And what, exactly, are you trying to get at here?

Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

VoltageGames wrote:

Scratch is made for 8 year olds.
I doubt 8 years know much about how subtracting a negative makes a positive.
And why would 8 years olds use complicated work arounds when they could use
change x by ()
?

I have a sneaking suspicion you might have made this post because of seeing your own suggestions shot down for work arounds. Am I right, or no?

The reason for this post is that people think “work-aroundable” is a legitimate reason for no-supporting. This has not happened to my suggestions (you can look at all of mine; some were rejected for different reasons, some were not rejected at all), but I was starting to get really annoyed by the magnitude of no-supports given to suggestions simply because it could theoretically be work-arounded. This post is a demonstration of what Scratch would be like if that reasoning was used in development.

Last edited by Cyoce (Dec. 14, 2014 17:13:54)

peppermintpatty5
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Firedrake969 wrote:

peppermintpatty5 wrote:

I'm making a project that will cover ALL workarounds.
It would be the version of Scratch that I would love to see. Should be done in a few days.
“jump 5 feet, then attack enemy until dead”
“launch rocket from planet X at 100 ft/s and at an initial height of 500 m with a gravity constant of -5 ft/s”

All?
No, all workarounds of the current Scratch blocks we have now. I won't be able to do them all because of limitations with the custom blocks.


#BringBackDiscuss
lalala3
Scratcher
100+ posts

Work-arounds

TechnoDriveX wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

First off, your sig is wrong, because if something can be remade (“Work arounded”) then it is not being invalidated. It is being made. So there :V
Secondly, basic mathematical functions are a core function of all programming languages, so using that a point is silly. Steps workaround is large, sure… but you realize that that's why it's a thing.
  1. Re-Check my signature.
  2. I’ve seen larger work-arounds than the steps work-arounds in stead of an explanation for their “no support”.

That's because they aren't as important as steps to many projects.
Are you really so prepared to say that? Let's take a look at the case of x^y:
Some people might suggest
set [answer v] to [1]
repeat (y)
set [answer v] to ((answer) * (x))
end
or
set [answer v] to ([e ^ v] of ((y) * ([ln v] of (x)))
But these don't even work all the time. Honestly, people if you post a workaround, at least make sure it actually works. And the 10^ workaround is a lame excuse for not adding exponents.

Anyways, this is what you need to do to make a half-decent workaround:
define Raise (base) to (exp)
if <<(base) < [0]> and <<(exp) mod [0]> > [0]>> then
return[] // imaginary
end
if <<(base) < [0]> and (((exp) mod [2]) = [1])> then // odd power of negative number
return(([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp))) * [-1])
else // even power of any number
return([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp)))
end
Credit to RalphMath
And this is the simplest solution I could find.

Last edited by lalala3 (Dec. 14, 2014 17:59:09)


Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

lalala3 wrote:

TechnoDriveX wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

First off, your sig is wrong, because if something can be remade (“Work arounded”) then it is not being invalidated. It is being made. So there :V
Secondly, basic mathematical functions are a core function of all programming languages, so using that a point is silly. Steps workaround is large, sure… but you realize that that's why it's a thing.
  1. Re-Check my signature.
  2. I’ve seen larger work-arounds than the steps work-arounds in stead of an explanation for their “no support”.

That's because they aren't as important as steps to many projects.
Are you really so prepared to say that? Let's take a look at the case of x^y:
Some people might suggest
set [answer v] to [1]
repeat (y)
set [answer v] to ((answer) * (x))
end
or
set [answer v] to ([e ^ v] of ((y) * ([ln v] of (x)))
But these don't even work all the time. Honestly, people if you post a workaround, at least make sure it actually works. And the 10^ workaround is a lame excuse for not adding exponents.

Anyways, this is what you need to do to make a half-decent workaround:
define Raise (base) to (exp)
if <<(base) < [0]> and <<(exp) mod [0]> > [0]>> then
return[] :: custom-arg // imaginary
end
if <<(base) < [0]> and (((exp) mod [2]) = [1])> then // odd power of negative number
return(([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp))) * [-1]):: custom-arg
else // even power of any number
return([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp))):: custom-arg
end
Credit to RalphMath
And this is the simplest solution I could find.
This.

Last edited by Cyoce (Dec. 14, 2014 19:23:24)

RPFluffy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Cyoce wrote:

RPFluffy wrote:

REALLY like this, these workarounds would help others' make more exact detailed blocks.. if you know what I mean!
I guess these could help people understand what the blocks would do, but that was not my point.
I wasn't saying it would help them understand how they work, more the way of creative thinking and exact functions, I still like these workarounds, will you add more.

And I can't see how someone would understand a block more if it said things so complicated, maybe some programmers trying scratch, but anyways, yeah.. (Terrible ending)

Nothing Is EVER 100%, that is just an assumption.















Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people.
My “..” and “…” are not spelling mistakes, it means that they are ways of telling someone that I can continue more about it and that the sentence isn't ended the best way. I like putting new indents and lines so I can split up what I am talking about.




































Some important links: Here and here or need help click Here. Eats followers, Loves helping people. Check this MMO out! Kiwi = Support WHAT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE: Through the drop down ;)
if <> :: control cstart

else :: control
end
Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

RPFluffy wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

RPFluffy wrote:

REALLY like this, these workarounds would help others' make more exact detailed blocks.. if you know what I mean!
I guess these could help people understand what the blocks would do, but that was not my point.
I wasn't saying it would help them understand how they work, more the way of creative thinking and exact functions, I still like these workarounds, will you add more.

And I can't see how someone would understand a block more if it said things so complicated, maybe some programmers trying scratch, but anyways, yeah.. (Terrible ending)
If you’re looking for a serious collection of work-arounds, then I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place; this is specifically designed to be as tedious as possible, replacing every possible block that can be replaced with another block. However, I could make a work-arounds collection / project. That could be interesting.
djdolphin
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Cyoce wrote:

RPFluffy wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

RPFluffy wrote:

REALLY like this, these workarounds would help others' make more exact detailed blocks.. if you know what I mean!
I guess these could help people understand what the blocks would do, but that was not my point.
I wasn't saying it would help them understand how they work, more the way of creative thinking and exact functions, I still like these workarounds, will you add more.

And I can't see how someone would understand a block more if it said things so complicated, maybe some programmers trying scratch, but anyways, yeah.. (Terrible ending)
If you’re looking for a serious collection of work-arounds, then I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place; this is specifically designed to be as tedious as possible, replacing every possible block that can be replaced with another block. However, I could make a work-arounds collection / project. That could be interesting.
http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/List_of_Block_Workarounds

!
Cyoce
Scratcher
500+ posts

Work-arounds

The wiki page with the list of work-arounds is kind of silly; it uses block A for a work-around of block B, and block B as a work-around for block A, for example, which doesn’t really demonstrate how the block works and why.
peppermintpatty5
Scratcher
1000+ posts

Work-arounds

Cyoce wrote:

The wiki page with the list of work-arounds is kind of silly; it uses block A for a work-around of block B, and block B as a work-around for block A, for example, which doesn’t really demonstrate how the block works and why.
There are basic blocks that CAN NOT be worked around, such as this:
set [var v] to [8]
If you try to work around with this:
change [var v] by ((var) * (-1))
change [var v] by [8]
you will have essentially gone in a circle.

Last edited by peppermintpatty5 (Dec. 14, 2014 21:37:12)



#BringBackDiscuss

Powered by DjangoBB

Standard | Mobile