switch costume to [ v]

jromagnoli wrote:

No support. It's fine as it is, and removing these could break MANY projects. It would also be more confusing.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

KingOfAwesome58219 wrote:

The switch backdrop block already has this figured out

Why not just add those options to the

switch costume to [ v]

block?
except you replace ‘backdrop’ with ‘costume’, obviously

braxbroscratcher wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

No support. It's fine as it is, and removing these could break MANY projects. It would also be more confusing.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To be fair you could easily have a bot replace the old versions with the updated Sensing block and it'd do nothing.

(costume #)

([costume# v] of [sprite v])

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

Austinato wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

But a likely reason for joining Scratch is a first step to becoming a real programmer. Suppose your first step was instead a programming language that had blocks like these:

spin and twirl around::control
switch costumes real fast::looks
fade the sound in and out and in and out and do that again three more times::sound

It hardly even would be programming then, and it wouldn't at all help you learn to program. Scratch isn't like that, but to learn to program you need less “built-in” programming and more “create-your-own-workaround” and it'll really help you learn the harder programming languages, rather than spoil you so that when you try out a harder programming language, you'll be like, “What IS this? Where's this? Where's that? Wait, you want me to do ALL this WORK? What kind of programming language is THIS?” And experienced programmers might actually feel like they are being spoiled.

I literally just said that, but a majority of blocks you listed should be kept just for the simplicity of the site.

Well, I would say to put the simple blocks in a younger version then, but age groups is rejected…

*coughcough*ScratchJr*coughcough*

KlonanoRook wrote:

If Move Ten Steps can be workarounded, why not remove that, too? Or maybe lots of other blocks that can be worked around, yeah, let's remove those to just to break projects and confuse new users.

monstermash3 wrote:

Cub56 wrote:

Still even if there is a workaround, it doesn't mean that if you don't have to find a 30-block workaround then it's just “giving it to you on a silver platter”.

But this isn't a 30-block workaround. I mean, how much different is a three block workaround from “giving it to you on a silver platter” anyway? The reason to not do this is almost nothing compared to the reason to not remove the move block and use scratchisthebest's workaround.

monstermash3 wrote:

(The workaround for this is much easier)

turn ccw (10) degrees

turn cw (-10) degrees

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

(The workaround for this is much easier)

The block

turn ccw (10) degrees

Is workaroundable. It just needs a different input of numbers:

turn cw (-10) degrees

Yet it's still kept and has been for quite a while imo.

turn cw (10) degrees

turn ccw (10) degrees

define turn right (input) degrees
point in direction (((((direction) + (input)) / (360)) - ([floor v] of (((direction) + (input)) / (360))::operators)) * (360))

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

(The workaround for this is much easier)

The block

turn ccw (10) degrees

Is workaroundable. It just needs a different input of numbers:

turn cw (-10) degrees

Yet it's still kept and has been for quite a while imo.

That's kind of a paradox though because you could also say that

turn cw (10) degrees

is workaroundable with

turn ccw (10) degrees

.

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

(The workaround for this is much easier)

The block

turn ccw (10) degrees

Is workaroundable. It just needs a different input of numbers:

turn cw (-10) degrees

Yet it's still kept and has been for quite a while imo.

That's kind of a paradox though because you could also say that

turn cw (10) degrees

is workaroundable with

turn ccw (10) degrees

.

I would think it'd be logical since in my opinion more people use clockwise rather than counter clockwise.

I could be wrong though. Idk.

jromagnoli wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

(The workaround for this is much easier)

The block

turn ccw (10) degrees

Is workaroundable. It just needs a different input of numbers:

turn cw (-10) degrees

Yet it's still kept and has been for quite a while imo.

That's kind of a paradox though because you could also say that

turn cw (10) degrees

is workaroundable with

turn ccw (10) degrees

.

I would think it'd be logical since in my opinion more people use clockwise rather than counter clockwise.

I could be wrong though. Idk.

According to the statistics, turn right/clockwise is used over twice as often as turn left/counterclockwise.

BY147258369 wrote:

Just realized there's a huge contradiction. If you plan to remove

next costume

and

(costume #)

How can you do the workaround of

switch costume to<(costume #) + (1)>

MacaylaMarvelous81 wrote:

BY147258369 wrote:

Just realized there's a huge contradiction. If you plan to remove

next costume

and

(costume #)

How can you do the workaround of

switch costume to<(costume #) + (1)>

yeah how!??!?!?

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

(I don't think that would make the above workaround for the next costume block much harder, since all you would have to do would be set the two dropdowns.)

I-I don't really know what dropdowns you're talking about.

The dropdowns in the of block.

Do you mean this?

switch costume to [costume 1]
switch costume to [costume 2]
switch costume to [costume 3]
[...]

No, the sensing block.

switch costume to ((([Costume v] of [Sprite1 v])) + (0))

?

Yeah, I mean this block.

Comparing to the block that we already have and how much I've used it, that workaround seems way too complex for me. I mean, sure you can backpack it, but I don't want to go to my backpack, search for it, then finally find the block and wish that there was an official shortcut that was already there in the first place.

You know what? I think you're right about the reporter. I'll get rid of

(costume #)

MacaylaMarvelous81 wrote:

BY147258369 wrote:

Just realized there's a huge contradiction. If you plan to remove

next costume

and

(costume #)

How can you do the workaround of

switch costume to<(costume #) + (1)>

yeah how!??!?!?

(() + (0))

jromagnoli wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

ShyGamer16 wrote:

I wouldn't consider those workarounds as workarounds are supposed to be easier then the regular way.