johandsa2020 wrote:

Remove change my variable by (value). It is used by many people but the thing is that the user might find it tricky to learn other programming languages eg: javascript.. its better if the user uses set my variable to (variable+1). It might improve the editor loading speed too. The editor will still be
the same but the blocks will be reduced and the block is useless but it makes scratch easy to use.

It would be a good habit to use that method because if the user kept using change my variable they would find it challenging to make text-based programming language projects. The user might get confused too. Because they used to use change my variable in their projects.

What do you think about this theory?

US-Systems wrote:

I completely disagree, asking to insert it in the TOLORS.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

Support, this is used in more advanced programming languages although we should allow all projects with the block to retain it and as long as there is some way to drag the two blocks onto the stage together rather than having to assemble this every time (the variable reported should change with the dropdown)

colinmacc wrote
you can't really remove things that will break millions of projects. it's just not worth it.

scratchgodo wrote:

that can confuse some scratchers and

colinmacc wrote
you can't really remove things that will break millions of projects. it's just not worth it.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

We should allow all projects with the block to retain it.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

I think you are forgetting that this is supposed to be an introductory programming language. As said before, there are a lot of projects that use the block that's been suggested to be removed. I don't believe that taking this away and replacing it will make Scratch easier to learn, which is one of the goals that the Scratch Team strive for. (Not to mention that it should have been removed a long time ago, because now practically everyone knows what it is and is used to it.) Honestly I think that the people supporting this are among the few who would want this.

PATSATDAT wrote:

no support JavaScript has it

var thing = 0;
thing += 1;

Tunde123 wrote:

PATSATDAT wrote:

no support JavaScript has it

var thing = 0;
thing += 1;

This isn't JavaScript though…
And I don't support. Why would you want to Remove change my variable?

set [foo v] to ((foo) + (1))

// javascript
foo = foo + 1;

# python
foo = foo + 1

// c++
foo = foo + 1;

Reev0102 wrote:

Tunde123 wrote:

PATSATDAT wrote:

no support JavaScript has it

var thing = 0;
thing += 1;

This isn't JavaScript though…
And I don't support. Why would you want to Remove change my variable?

As stated multiple times, all other programming languages don't have such a function. They all have

set [foo v] to ((foo) + (1))

// javascript
foo = foo + 1;

# python
foo = foo + 1

// c++
foo = foo + 1;

repeat until <not<(true)=(true)>>
...
end

mybearworld wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed. Most programming languages have , for example Python, Javascript, C, C++, Java…

Wei-ern_520 wrote:

Besides, if so, why not just remove the forever loop block too since it does not exist in other languages and can easily be done with this:

repeat until <not<(true)=(true)>>
...
end

Because it is like so in python:

while True:
The code

Since repeat until not is the same as a while loop.

scratchgodo wrote:

Wei-ern_520 wrote:

Besides, if so, why not just remove the forever loop block too since it does not exist in other languages and can easily be done with this:

repeat until <not<(true)=(true)>>
...
end

Because it is like so in python:

while True:
The code

Since repeat until not is the same as a while loop.

please make a new topic for your suggestion

Quantum-Cat wrote:

Does removing it really make learning text-based programming languages any easier or simpler to understand? I don't think so. This would also make using the block more annoying as you have to drag 2 extra blocks each time.

set [foo] to foo + []