bump
also can someone please explain how come people would no support because it happens to be in a different programming language and also people on that programming language think its bad for some reason

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

bump
also can someone please explain how come people would no support because it happens to be in a different programming language and also people on that programming language think its bad for some reason

What you've proposed is usually known as a “goto” in other languages. The main reason that is generally cited for gotos being bad is that they have a tendency to make “spaghetti code” - code whose flow of execution is very hard to follow, which makes maintaining it hard as well.

Others will tell you that gotos are not harmful if used responsibly - for example, a goto to break out of a deeply nested loop can be cleaner than other methods.

Flowermanvista wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

bump
also can someone please explain how come people would no support because it happens to be in a different programming language and also people on that programming language think its bad for some reason

What you've proposed is usually known as a “goto” in other languages. The main reason that is generally cited for gotos being bad is that they have a tendency to make “spaghetti code” - code whose flow of execution is very hard to follow, which makes maintaining it hard as well.

Others will tell you that gotos are not harmful if used responsibly - for example, a goto to break out of a deeply nested loop can be cleaner than other methods.

So, because people use too much of these of their own free will, they say it's bad?

So, I'd say semi-support. This would help a little, but might make spaghetti code. Here is a good block idea:

start jump () :: control
end jump () :: control

Also, this may be used to make forever loops, like

when [timer v]>(8)
end jump (1) :: control
move (10) steps
start jump (1) :: control

Another thing, can we change one of the blocks to:

jump :: motion cap

BosenChang wrote:

So, I'd say semi-support. This would help a little, but might make spaghetti code. Here is a good block idea:

start jump () :: control
end jump () :: control

Also, this may be used to make forever loops, like

when [timer v]>(8)
end jump (1) :: control
move (10) steps
start jump (1) :: control

what would happen if you had 2 end jumps but only 1 start jump?

Support this was so helpful in batch also I thank the blocks should look like this

goto ()  ::control

here () ::control

the first one would jump two the second one

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

bump
also can someone please explain how come people would no support because it happens to be in a different programming language and also people on that programming language think its bad for some reason

What you've proposed is usually known as a “goto” in other languages. The main reason that is generally cited for gotos being bad is that they have a tendency to make “spaghetti code” - code whose flow of execution is very hard to follow, which makes maintaining it hard as well.

Others will tell you that gotos are not harmful if used responsibly - for example, a goto to break out of a deeply nested loop can be cleaner than other methods.

So, because people use too much of these of their own free will, they say it's bad?

I don't think it's necessarily the same people who abuse gotos who say that they're bad. I believe it's mostly other people who have to mantain programs that abuse gotos who are saying that they're bad.

Solution?

goto  [ v]  :: control
land  [ v] :: control

There's should be a choice to add an ID…
and an option disappears when there's already another land block that uses that option.
If you don't have a matching land block for the goto block, it does nothing.
If you don't have a matching goto block for the goto block, it does nothing.

ioton wrote:

Solution?

goto  [ v]  :: control
land  [ v] :: control

There's should be a choice to add an ID…
and an option disappears when there's already another land block that uses that option.
If you don't have a matching land block for the goto block, it does nothing.
If you don't have a matching goto block for the goto block, it does nothing.

Ah, just like broadcasts.

ioton wrote:

Solution?

goto  [ v]  :: control
land  [ v] :: control

There's should be a choice to add an ID…
and an option disappears when there's already another land block that uses that option.
If you don't have a matching land block for the goto block, it does nothing.
If you don't have a matching goto block for the goto block, it does nothing.

Ah, just like broadcasts.
(It posted twice!)

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

This is not a physics block. It goes to a specific part of the code, not actually jumping.

Then please explain why it's a motion block and not a control block - the closest thing to jumping is forever.

I agree that it's a really primitive block. Scratch is more or less JS and JS is more advanced then C++ and I think that C++ has jump blocks - but I never used them. Assembler has them - but that's another thing. Jumping is for me like blocking code: Nope. Don't do it.

HTML-Fan wrote:

I agree that it's a really primitive block. Scratch is more or less JS and JS is more advanced then C++ and I think that C++ has jump blocks - but I never used them. Assembler has them - but that's another thing. Jumping is for me like blocking code: Nope. Don't do it.

Yes, C++ has goto statements but they are almost never used, and in most cases using them is considered a bad practice.

Maximouse wrote:

Yes, C++ has goto statements but they are almost never used, and in most cases using them is considered a bad practice.

Okay, you see, I wasn't even sure if they exist and I use C++ for years. It's just a bad thing. It makes me think “That's not the right way of doing that!” but sadly, Scratch is full of those things. I just say pen and multitasking.

HTML-Fan wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

This is not a physics block. It goes to a specific part of the code, not actually jumping.

Then please explain why it's a motion block and not a control block - the closest thing to jumping is forever.

I agree that it's a really primitive block. Scratch is more or less JS and JS is more advanced then C++ and I think that C++ has jump blocks - but I never used them. Assembler has them - but that's another thing. Jumping is for me like blocking code: Nope. Don't do it.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

scratchastroLOL wrote:

I think this probably belongs in Control rather than Motion…

i only made it a motion block because it was blue, just like the jump block in Human Resource Machine.

Also how is going to another place in the code like blocking code?

Also, it seems to me that the only reason people have for no supporting is that it happens to be in a different programming language and people don't use it in those. If you aren't going to use it, other people will. So instead of thinking of how “IT'S A BAD PRACTICE AND C++ HAS IT AND I DON'T USE IT”, why don't you… NOT use it? Then there wouldn't be an issue.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Also how is going to another place in the code like blocking code?

Both have better ways of doing.

Maximouse wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Also how is going to another place in the code like blocking code?

Both have better ways of doing.

Yep. They both make me feel awful in the same way. It's just wrong in my mind. I understand that other people may like it, but I personally don't want those blocks.

HTML-Fan wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Also how is going to another place in the code like blocking code?

Both have better ways of doing.

Yep. They both make me feel awful in the same way. It's just wrong in my mind. I understand that other people may like it, but I personally don't want those blocks.

Then just don't use them?

Flowermanvista wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Also how is going to another place in the code like blocking code?

Both have better ways of doing.

Yep. They both make me feel awful in the same way. It's just wrong in my mind. I understand that other people may like it, but I personally don't want those blocks.

Then just don't use them?

that's what's weird about this situation- people don't like a suggestion because they don't want it, but they won't even use it if it does get added, so what's the problem? they could just NOT USE THEM.
it wouldn't affect them in any way if it does get added.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

that's what's weird about this situation- people don't like a suggestion because they don't want it, but they won't even use it if it does get added, so what's the problem? they could just NOT USE THEM.
it wouldn't affect them in any way if it does get added.

The thing is, just knowing that it exists in that context makes me feel bad.

HTML-Fan wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

that's what's weird about this situation- people don't like a suggestion because they don't want it, but they won't even use it if it does get added, so what's the problem? they could just NOT USE THEM.
it wouldn't affect them in any way if it does get added.

The thing is, just knowing that it exists in that context makes me feel bad.

Yeah, it just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of Scratch.