I know there are methods for porting a .sb2 project to an executable but with Scratch 3.0 now running with HTML5 instead of the horribly obscure Squeak could we have a built-in function for compiling our projects to an .EXE application? Sort of like how you can export a Snap! project to an EXE.

If I remember correctly, Scratch 3.0 will save projects in an .sb3 format, which probably isn't too much different from .sb2. However things like Junebeetle's converter will no longer work. I agree, currently doing this is very complicated.

Well, things like Sulfuros and Phosphorus convert the .sb2 files to .js. It's not too much of a stretch to convert .js files into .exe (Or maybe .app for Mac users like me). Maybe something similar for 3.0? A lot of HTML5 games work in conjunction with JavaScript anyway.

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

Gibom wrote:

If I remember correctly, Scratch 3.0 will save projects in an .sb3 format, which probably isn't too much different from .sb2. However things like Junebeetle's converter will no longer work. I agree, currently doing this is very complicated.

.sb3 is completely different from .sb2; I believe .sb3 is an XML format while .sb2 is a ZIP (compressed folder) format.

dude341 wrote:

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

I know that sb2 doesn't use Squeak but the method I use for porting to .exe with Scratch 2 involves converting it to .sb

evilpacman10 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

I know that sb2 doesn't use Squeak but the method I use for porting to .exe with Scratch 2 involves converting it to .sb

sb2 does not = Scratch 2.
sb does not = Scratch 1.4 or any other Scratch 1.x version
Scratch 2 and 1.4 are programming languages.
.sb2 is a .zip based file format for storing projects created with Scratch 2.
.sb is a custom file format for storing projects created with versions 1.0 to 1.4 of Scratch.
Just to clear up any confusion.
Also, there is no need to convert to .sb.
Just convert your .sb2 to a .swf (a flash file) and convert that into a .exe.
I believe there is a popular tool for converting .sb2 into .swf.
Then there probably is a .swf to .exe converter on Google, haven't checked though.

dude341 wrote:

Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

This is perfectly fine to do.
See this list of Electron based applications:
https://electronjs.org/apps
Notice that Twitch and Discord are both browsers with HTML inside of them
It's the way of the future.

bybb wrote:

Notice that Twitch and Discord are both browsers with HTML inside of them
It's the way of the future.

Discord takes up way too much memory for me. If Electron is “the way of the future”, then Chromebooks would be the only choice of laptops in the future, which I don't see happening.
Microsoft tried to do this, and they completely failed. Most issues in Windows 98 and ME were caused by Internet Explorer even if you didn't use it because many components of the operating system rely on Internet Explorer.

dude341 wrote:

bybb wrote:

Notice that Twitch and Discord are both browsers with HTML inside of them
It's the way of the future.

Microsoft tried to do this, and they completely failed. Most issues in Windows 98 and ME were caused by Internet Explorer even if you didn't use it because many components of the operating system rely on Internet Explorer.

Yes, 18 years ago, when it was too soon to do this.
Now it's the perfect time to do this.
RAM is cheap.
CPU is cheap.

bybb wrote:

Yes, 18 years ago, when it was too soon to do this.
Now it's the perfect time to do this.
RAM is cheap.
CPU is cheap.

It isn't cheap for everyone.
Even if I have 16 GB of RAM I don't care, any program should not be taking up more 100,000K of ram. Even Firefox does this unfortunately, as it's my favourite browser.

dude341 wrote:

bybb wrote:

Yes, 18 years ago, when it was too soon to do this.
Now it's the perfect time to do this.
RAM is cheap.
CPU is cheap.

It isn't cheap for everyone.
Even if I have 16 GB of RAM I don't care, any program should not be taking up more 100,000K of ram. Even Firefox does this unfortunately, as it's my favourite browser.

Agreed. If a program takes up more than 100,000K of ram it's over-weight. But why are we even talking about this in a forum post on the suggestions tab lmao

homeuser3 wrote:

But why are we even talking about this in a forum post on the suggestions tab

Read:

dude341 wrote:

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

and it's replies.

dude341 wrote:

homeuser3 wrote:

But why are we even talking about this in a forum post on the suggestions tab

Read:

dude341 wrote:

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

and it's replies.

oki

No support. Soon the converters will find a way to convert sb2 to sb3 or sb3 to exe.

happyland440 wrote:

You totally could using Electron.

Please read

dude341 wrote:

Only the outdated Scratch 1.4 and below uses Squeak. 2.0 uses Flash, which, although soon will be outdated, is still modern (not really any more but you get the idea).

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

and it's replies.

dude341 wrote:

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (Microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

The 2.0 offline editor is “wrapped” in Adobe Air (basically just creates a .exe with a few libraries and the .swf). This idea just “wraps” a .sb3 into a .exe file with the engine embedded. And Scratch 3.0's offline editor will basically be packaged in a similar way. Saying this when this has already happened and to reference the 9x line of windows and about 18-20 years of technology improvements has happened since then makes your argument pretty invalid and outdated.

Meowlithius wrote:

dude341 wrote:

Note Windows desktop programming is not done with HTML so talking about Scratch 3 is irrelevant anyway. Unfortunately if they did add this feature they would most likely use the easy way of doing it (an embedded browser in the .exe file so they can just run the projects in standard HTML), which is not only an annoying idea (Microsoft tried to do this with features in Windows 98) but would take up quite a lot of resources.

The 2.0 offline editor is “wrapped” in Adobe Air (basically just creates a .exe with a few libraries and the .swf). This idea just “wraps” a .sb3 into a .exe file with the engine embedded. And Scratch 3.0's offline editor will basically be packaged in a similar way. Saying this when this has already happened and to reference the 9x line of windows and about 18-20 years of technology improvements has happened since then makes your argument pretty invalid and outdated.

Scratch 2 actually runs well though, any software that is basically a browser does NOT run well, even with 16 GB of RAM. So my argument is not invalid.
Read:

dude341 wrote:

bybb wrote:

Notice that Twitch and Discord are both browsers with HTML inside of them
It's the way of the future.

Discord takes up way too much memory for me. If Electron is “the way of the future”, then Chromebooks would be the only choice of laptops in the future, which I don't see happening.
Microsoft tried to do this, and they completely failed. Most issues in Windows 98 and ME were caused by Internet Explorer even if you didn't use it because many components of the operating system rely on Internet Explorer.

and

homeuser3 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

bybb wrote:

Yes, 18 years ago, when it was too soon to do this.
Now it's the perfect time to do this.
RAM is cheap.
CPU is cheap.

It isn't cheap for everyone.
Even if I have 16 GB of RAM I don't care, any program should not be taking up more 100,000K of ram. Even Firefox does this unfortunately, as it's my favourite browser.

Agreed. If a program takes up more than 100,000K of ram it's over-weight.

Let me ask you this…
http://u.cubeupload.com/Meowlit12/548Screenshot20181025at.png
if youtube uses 100mb just to work and still run fine with all of this (including Scratch 3) on a Chromebook why can't Scratch 3 on a Windows PC?