No support. Although they can be worked around in the way you said, there are thousands/millions of projects containing these blocks and these projects will all be broken and won't work if the blocks are removed.

(However, I personally disagree with the statement that the workaround is confusing for New Scratchers.)

The ST in the past has changed blocks to their workarounds to work properly when they removed them, so no projects will be broken.

Example; Forever If blocks were changed to the workaround automatically.

Wait wait wait, hold up. I just reviewed the OP.

So you're suggesting it to be removed, just because of an easy workaround?

No support

Just because a block has a workaround does not mean it needs to be axed… You can remove “move x steps” because there is a simple workaround:

go to x: ((x position) + ((steps) * ([cos v] of (direction)))) y: ((y position) + ((steps) * ([sin v] of (direction))))

Now, you probably didn't find that workaround “simple” at all. And that's my point. Beginner Scratchers may not understand the “get the current costume number, add one to it, and switch to that costume.” workaround. All they want is a block that switches to the next costume so they can make an animation. Then, if they, for example, want to make a block that goes *backwards* one costume, *then* they have to learn the addition-subtraction trick, and - oops! - they're learning how to program!

Do you see how the difficulty gently “ramps up” because of this? The “easy” Next Costume block serves a dual purpose. For beginner Scratchers, it allows them to get their feet wet and make a simple project, even while they're maybe not the best at programming. For advanced Scratchers, it's just convenient!

You also have to ask yourself, what does Scratch gain from *removing* blocks?! You're literally just making Scratch harder to use. But for what benefit?

scratchisthebest wrote:

No support

Just because a block has a workaround does not mean it needs to be axed… You can remove “move x steps” because there is a simple workaround:

go to x: ((x position) + ((steps) * ([cos v] of (direction)))) y: ((y position) + ((steps) * ([sin v] of (direction))))

Now, you probably didn't find that workaround “simple” at all. And that's my point. Beginner Scratchers may not understand the “get the current costume number, add one to it, and switch to that costume.” workaround. All they want is a block that switches to the next costume so they can make an animation. Then, if they, for example, want to make a block that goes *backwards* one costume, *then* they have to learn the addition-subtraction trick, and - oops! - they're learning how to program!

Do you see how the difficulty gently “ramps up” because of this? The “easy” Next Costume block serves a dual purpose. For beginner Scratchers, it allows them to get their feet wet and make a simple project, even while they're maybe not the best at programming. For advanced Scratchers, it's just convenient!

But that workaround you included there is very different. The next costume block workaround doesn't use any trigonometry, just simple addition. And unless New Scratchers know nothing about costumes at all (in which case they probably wouldn't be using that block), they would probably understand the concept of costume numbers, and from there… easy.

scratchisthebest wrote:

You also have to ask yourself, what does Scratch gain from *removing* blocks?! You're literally just making Scratch harder to use. But for what benefit?

Programming isn't supposed to be completely easy. Since, in a project with the ask block, you often have to save the answer in a variable, like this:

set [variable v] to (answer)

if the goal was to make Scratch easier to use, why not just add this block?

save answer to [variable v]::sensing

Also, if the goal was to avoid making programming more difficult at all, these blocks would not have been removed.

monstermash3 wrote:

I think the following Looks blocks should be removed:

next costume

next backdrop
(backdrop #)
(backdrop name)
(size)

The reason is, they all have extremely easy workarounds.

just because some blocks have easy workarounds doesn't mean they should be removed. there isn't a reason to remove them. if you dont like them, go ahead and use the workarounds yourself. dont force your opinion on others.

Well if it's already added I don't see why they should be removed. Removing it will just be an inconvenience to others. Plus it would break projects which uses the block.

awesome5185 wrote:

Well if it's already added I don't see why they should be removed. Removing it will just be an inconvenience to others.

But these blocks were removed (at least partly) because of workarounds, and there were probably lots of projects using them.

monstermash3 wrote:

awesome5185 wrote:

Well if it's already added I don't see why they should be removed. Removing it will just be an inconvenience to others.

But these blocks were removed (at least partly) because of workarounds, and there were probably lots of projects using them.

They all had more reasons to be removed than just the workarounds. Forever if was often confused with a forever inside an if, loud was based on an arbitrary value so it was ambiguous, abs and sqrt were merged into a single block, and comments were apparently confusing because people expected them to do something when run. The others were removed in beta so they were never really added in the first place.

You'll notice the argument for removing abs and sqrt could also be applied to replacing next costume with an option in the change costume dropdown. I would actually support that, as long as the dropdown option is added.

stickfiregames wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

awesome5185 wrote:

Well if it's already added I don't see why they should be removed. Removing it will just be an inconvenience to others.

But these blocks were removed (at least partly) because of workarounds, and there were probably lots of projects using them.

They all had more reasons to be removed than just the workarounds. Forever if was often confused with a forever inside an if, loud was based on an arbitrary value so it was ambiguous, abs and sqrt were merged into a single block, and comments were apparently confusing because people expected them to do something when run. The others were removed in beta so they were never really added in the first place.

You'll notice the argument for removing abs and sqrt could also be applied to replacing next costume with an option in the change costume dropdown. I would actually support that, as long as the dropdown option is added.

Yeah, I agree, that would be nice. But still, finding workarounds is good programming practice (in my opinion).

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”.

Firstly, a straightforward response; no support.

Although I agree with the “figure out yourself without being spoiled with simple blocks” aspect*, do remember that the Scratch website is designed for coding - for all ages and backgrounds. This applies to those who don't know what Python is, or those who completely know several programming languages. Some blocks on the site have been added to preserve the simplicity/easiness of the site, and this only increases the difficulty to experienced programmers, but might stress out newcomers.

*Not intended as an insult. I couldn't come up with a synonym.

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.

Austinato wrote:

Firstly, a straightforward response; no support.

Although I agree with the “figure out yourself without being spoiled with simple blocks” aspect*, do remember that the Scratch website is designed for coding - for all ages and backgrounds. This applies to those who don't know what Python is, or those who completely know several programming languages. Some blocks on the site have been added to preserve the simplicity/easiness of the site, and this only increases the difficulty to experienced programmers, but might stress out newcomers.

*Not intended as an insult. I couldn't come up with a synonym.

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.

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.

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…

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*

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*

Does ScratchJr even have costumes? I don't remember them.

stickfiregames wrote:

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*

Does ScratchJr even have costumes? I don't remember them.

Oh, srry. I was saying that to the younger version.

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.

-1 .. If they were to be removed, many projects would be ruined / broken .. so. It's fine how it is.