[sarcasm]remove the multiplication cuz work around

((4) * (3))
((4) + ((4) + (4)))

[/sarcasm]

What does the Scratch Team actually get out of adding anything though? Keeping a few dozen people who continue to use a programming language not made for them happy?

fdreerf wrote:

What does the Scratch Team actually get out of adding anything though? Keeping a few dozen people who continue to use a programming language not made for them happy?

Scratch's median age is 12 years old. Most of the people who want new features will not be much older than that. Adding things like substrings, exponents, etc will teach these older kids techniques of real programming. Although Scratch's low floor might benefit young kids, its low ceiling results in lots of people quitting programming. The Scratch Team really needs to focus more on keeping older children happy with Scratch, because although little kids bring them more traffic, Scratch is not really going to affect a 6 year old's programming journey.

Adding stuff is also exciting for all Scratchers because they get to try out new features.

https/scratch.mit.edu/developers wrote:

Design for Tinkerability
We believe that the learning process is inherently iterative. Tinkerers start by exploring and experimenting, then revising and refining their goals and creations. To support this style of interaction, we design our interfaces to encourage quick experimentation and rapid cycles of iteration.

Adding features will inspire these “tinkerers”.

Bump

It really just seems like the Scratch Team is trying to avoid programming that one highly requested feature. More features does not equal to a worse Scratch. If teenagers can do it, why not adults? Teenagers do it quicker than the official group that is working on Scratch.

TheTrillion wrote:

Support. It really just seems like the Scratch Team is trying to avoid programming that one highly requested feature. More features does not equal to a worse Scratch. If teenagers can do it, why can’t adults? These teenagers do it quicker than the official group that is working on Scratch.

yeah *cough cough* nono word *cough cough*

TheTrillion wrote:

Support. It really just seems like the Scratch Team is trying to avoid programming that one highly requested feature. More features does not equal to a worse Scratch. If teenagers can do it, why can’t adults? These teenagers do it quicker than the official group that is working on Scratch.

Couldn’t have said it better. Bump

the2000 wrote:

han614698 wrote:

There should be more categories: i.e. Operators should be separated into booleans and reporters, etc.

Why? It's not like the operators section is overflowing with blocks. This would just make things unnecessarily confusing. The current categories are great as they are. Also, there are booleans and reporters outside of operators. Would they be moved into these new sections too?

No, lists should have a separate section than variables.

Support, it will make scratch much more interesting.

fdreerf wrote:

What does the Scratch Team actually get out of adding anything though?

What do they get out of having this website?

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

What does the Scratch Team actually get out of adding anything though?

What do they get out of having this website?

Power and influence.

Now you are just full on roasting the ST, and in a rude way. /s

“If it's not broke, still continue adding new features to it to make it better.” - scratchieguy12345678

airplanedodge wrote:

Now you are just full on roasting the ST, and in a rude way. /s

How?

scratchieguy12345678 wrote:

“If it's not broke, still continue adding new features to it to make it better.” - scratchieguy12345678

YES!!

fdreerf wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

What does the Scratch Team actually get out of adding anything though?

What do they get out of having this website?

Power and influence.

xD

Perhaps the ST do need to consider adding some more features, but “think less and implement more?” No, that potentially allows for redundant features, unused features, and features that should've and would've been rejected getting added.

Sometimes, redundant features help with simplicity, so those are allowed to stay, but if a redundant feature is too redundant, it should be removed.
If a feature is added, how long before use dwindles? This is part of what the ST discuss when considering suggestions.
The ST want their site to be user friendly and just friendly in general. If they believe that a feature would be abused more than it would be used correctly, they won't add it.

To conclude, the ST want to keep it simple and friendly. They want features to do more good than harm.

Prime689 wrote:

A complete contradiction to Lightin's sticky:

Lightin wrote:

* High Ceiling: Even though it's easy for someone who is new to programming to get started with Scratch, it should still be possible to make complex stuff.

source

That quote can be misused - it doesn't mean Scratch has to constantly be adding more complex stuff, it just means (or at least the ST's current interpretation of it means) that we should consider more advanced users if we want to add or remove something.

dertermenter wrote:

airplanedodge wrote:

Now you are just full on roasting the ST, and in a rude way. /s

How?

They're being sarcastic. The /s indicates sarcasm.

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

That quote can be misused - it doesn't mean Scratch has to constantly be adding more complex stuff, it just means (or at least the ST's current interpretation of it means) that we should consider more advanced users if we want to add or remove something.

I don't think the ST often considers more advanced users when adding or removing features. They added the 200,000 item limit for lists to make it harder (not impossible!) for projects to crash, making creation of advanced projects much harder for essentially no reason.

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

Prime689 wrote:

A complete contradiction to Lightin's sticky:

Lightin wrote:

* High Ceiling: Even though it's easy for someone who is new to programming to get started with Scratch, it should still be possible to make complex stuff.

source

That quote can be misused - it doesn't mean Scratch has to constantly be adding more complex stuff, it just means (or at least the ST's current interpretation of it means) that we should consider more advanced users if we want to add or remove something.

Yes but to go with that scratch should also add some advanced features to make it easier for these advanced users.