han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No. You are completely wrong. Being constructive should be enforced.

dertermenter wrote:

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No. You are completely wrong. Being constructive should be enforced.

Where is it in the rules you have to say the reason why? They have the right of speech, this is not in the terms of use or community guidlines.

(Actually, they did say why they semi-supported, but I was too lazy to point that out).

han614698 wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No. You are completely wrong. Being constructive should be enforced.

Where is it in the rules you have to say the reason why? They have the right of speech, this is not in the terms of use or community guidlines.

(Actually, they did say why they semi-supported, but I was too lazy to point that out).

But you should be constructive, and there is a whole section about being constructive in the CG

han614698 wrote:

Where is it in the rules you have to say the reason why? They have the right of speech, this is not in the terms of use or community guidlines.

The right of speech means you can say what you want, but it does not say you are free of consequences.
And besides, this is the Scratch forums, not some public meeting where “right of speech” would be more relevant there. You can ask a moderator such as @Harakou and they will confirm that you should state your reason why you support. Please, let's not get offtopic (I would discuss this on your profile but that's closed)
It's also mentioned as the first thing in this sticky, and Paddle2See mentioned it recently here.

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No, they don't. I take it that you don't wear face-masks either; the people trying to enforce that are taking away your rights after all!

Socialix wrote:

Maybe rename this to “Log” or “Logger”, as it's only for prints/logs. By saying “logs”, it should probably be named “Logs”.
Meanwhile, just do this:

delete all of [Logs v] ::list // use to clear logs

add [meow meow meeeeowwwww] to [Logs v] // change meow to anything, prints to log

What

ninjaMAR wrote:

Socialix wrote:

Maybe rename this to “Log” or “Logger”, as it's only for prints/logs. By saying “logs”, it should probably be named “Logs”.
Meanwhile, just do this:

delete all of [Logs v] ::list // use to clear logs

add [meow meow meeeeowwwww] to [Logs v] // change meow to anything, prints to log

What

For some people, debug/output windows are for errors, warnings, prints, etc. However, Scratch doesn't have errors or warnings (unless you make it yourself) so it would be useless to call them debug/output windows. Logs seem better.

it posted twice

Socialix wrote:

For some people, debug/output windows are for errors, warnings, prints, etc. However, Scratch doesn't have errors or warnings (unless you make it yourself) so it would be useless to call them debug/output windows. Logs seem better.

I mean, debug window implies that you're solving bugs, which do occur on Scratch (assuming bugs can be both syntax and semantics errors)

Socialix wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

Socialix wrote:

Maybe rename this to “Log” or “Logger”, as it's only for prints/logs. By saying “logs”, it should probably be named “Logs”.
Meanwhile, just do this:

delete all of [Logs v] ::list // use to clear logs

add [meow meow meeeeowwwww] to [Logs v] // change meow to anything, prints to log

What

For some people, debug/output windows are for errors, warnings, prints, etc. However, Scratch doesn't have errors or warnings (unless you make it yourself) so it would be useless to call them debug/output windows. Logs seem better.

Its for debugging but you can also use it for logs

bump

han614698 wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No. You are completely wrong. Being constructive should be enforced.

Where is it in the rules you have to say the reason why? They have the right of speech, this is not in the terms of use or community guidlines.

(Actually, they did say why they semi-supported, but I was too lazy to point that out).

But its is in the community guildlines lol

bump

bump

I'm surprised no one's checked for dupes, I'll search a bit and see what i can find

the2000 wrote:

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No, they don't. I take it that you don't wear face-masks either; the people trying to enforce that are taking away your rights after all!

Yes, I do.

bump

bump

dertermenter wrote:

han614698 wrote:

ninjaMAR wrote:

samq64 wrote:

I do this using lists, but this would be easier Simi-Support.

If you support you say support and why

They have the right to refrain from saying why they support; your response was unnecessary and spam.

No. You are completely wrong. Being constructive should be enforced.

If the post was only “I do this using lists, but this would be easier,” it would be constructive, so I don’t see what the issue is. Even if it is close to being unconstructive, bringing it up, and worse, arguing over it, only makes the problem worse.

Using lists as a workaround is a very good point. What advantage does this suggestion have over lists? Lists are already implemented and act about the same. The main disadvantages I can think of are no line wrapping, no auto scroll, and it covers up part of the stage. These issues are not difficult to work around though. In light of lists, I don’t know that adding a console would be useful enough to convince the Scratch Team to go through the effort of implementing it.

define log (text)
insert (text) at (1 v) of [Log v] // Doesn’t require scrolling

What is debugging? How can you even use it?