Talk:Scratch (programming language)

Syntax?

Seeing that Scratch is a block-based programming language, it may not be possible, but shouldn't there be a 'syntax' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8460:BE1:6C18:671C:4843:DB33 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh

7aphrodite101 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Block part?

Why is there that link section about 'Blocks'? Should someone delete it? 68.117.43.34 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Deleted. SethTisue (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

can you put it back? blocks SHOULD be there Valehd (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was just a broken link. The article looked like this back in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scratch_(programming_language)&oldid=207375627#Blocks

We now have one example of blocks (the Hello World screenshot.) But I think one or two more would be in order. You are welcome to be bold and propose further improvements.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It really should be there I mean it is really helpful for people who have never used Scratch Lavinder111 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

the blocks section MUST be added back! Valehd (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cannot upload

I cannot upload games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw3435 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A SCRATCH SUPPORT SITE!!! --97.96.189.179 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be nice...

You have to make an account first. - Dets65 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) -

Seriously can we all just be nice to each other Lavinder111 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Name

The article was moved today to add unnecessary parentheses to the article title. See WP:NAME. I could not see any explanation in the edit summary. Could you revert the change please, or post the reason for the move here? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "unnecessary parentheses"? The name of the programming langauge is not "Scratch programming language", it's simply "Scratch". Take a look at C (programming language), D (programming language), Java (programming language), etc. I didn't think I'd need to give a reason for the move. — ^FatalError 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A reason isn't mandatory; it just helps prevent knee-jerk reversions. For what it is worth, I think parentheses could also be removed from the other article names you mentioned. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But they haven't been for a reason. See WP:D#Naming the specific topic articles, specifically number 2. Number 1 doesn't apply here because Scratch isn't referred to as "Scratch programming language", it's just "Scratch". — ^FatalError 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find it improper to call this a programming language, as it technically is not. It's simply a tool to program in the Squeak! programming language. Scratch is more so a user interface for acting with a programming language. Would it not be more appropriate to call this article: Scratch (programming tool) or something of the like? Just looking for some opinions. Anonymous- 10:42, 4 February 2009

I don't know much about it, but from what I've read it does actually have its own programming language (based on Squeak). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, every source I've read calls it a programming language, so I don't think it should be changed. — ^FatalError 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it's not a big deal. Still, though, I feel that this is not 100% accurate as it is not a full-fledged programming language. More so, again, a tool. Anonymous- 3:14, 5 February 2009

Well, isn't that the definition of a visual programming language? — ^FatalError 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scratch was implemented in Squeak, but it's quite different as a programming language. Saying that Scratch is Squeak is like saying that Lisp is C because people have implemented Lisp systems in C. The new version (2.0) isn't implemented in Squeak, but in Actionscript (Flash). Briankharvey (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

License

Should we mention the license? MIT seems to be deliberately hiding pesky license issues for most users, but the Linux tarball has a license.txt file that seems to BSD-like except it doesn't explicitly allow modification. Personally, not being able to remix the work is a bit off-putting to me, and I think this is valuable information for the article. Swap (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The license of the source code does allow you to modify it (http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Source_Code), it just doesn't allow you to distribute changes for commercial use. There are already some users that have modified the source and have created new versions of Scratch with other functionality, such as Chirp by Jens Moening (http://chirp.scratchr.org) AndresMonroyHernandez (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Release History

a release history would be useful, so i know wether a certain feature is available, as my school have an old version Microsofkid (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I really agree Lavinder111 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Object Oriented

Scratch isn't really object oriented - you cannot refer to variables or functions inside another object, and you cannot create more than one instance of an object. Muzer (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. I think John Maloney can be taken as an authority on the meaning of 'object-oriented', and in his 2003 paper he says that Scratch rejected the object-oriented paradigm at least as far as objects having different vocabularies (Section 6, para 3 "Only one kind of object.") Yet it seems to meet the Kay definition: "OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things."[1] --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In Scratch 2 you can clone sprites i.e. create many instances of an object. Since Scratch 1.0 you can call functions in other objects using broadcasts i.e. messaging. Since Scratch 1.2 you can read some numeric variables of another object: x position, y position, direction, costume #, size, and volume. Mikael4u (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Other Lifelong Kindergarten Projects

Should we have the section explaining other Lifelong Kindergarten projects? Doesn't quite seem appropriate. We should probably just create a page for the Lifelong Kindergarten group instead of having their other stuff in an unrelated article. Benny476 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the normal way to write a See also section. However, I would like to read a Lifelong Kindergarten article, if you write one that complements the current articles on Mitchel Resnick and the well known projects. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability and/or Bias

In the online community section I see some bias in the reference of various authors but I wonder if the mention of these people (who are in actually, no offence, primarily just a bunch of 10-year-old furries), is even actually notable at all.

What do you think? --98.197.234.158 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That is good material for a forum, but not for an encyclopedia that aims to be verifiable. Let's delete it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

List of block based visual programing languages/environments?

Perhaps it is time to setup a list of the different block based programing languages/environments avaiable out there (besides Scratch, there is Blockly, the Android AppInventor, Snap/BYOB and many others). In particular i'm interested in seeing which ones allow for exporting source code for which language, on which platforms they are avaiable etc. --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Block based languages seem to gain popularity these days and they are even used by some big software development companies for rapid development. At least add more block based languages to the See Also section. Hashan 09:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayasri (talk • contribs)

Scratch Wiki

Should we talk about Scratch Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe! I'm super active on it, I bet I could write the whole section :P
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any content from the Wikia that could enhance the article? In your opinion, what does the article currently lack? -DevinCook (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Devin, I think the OP is not talking about Wikia but about http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/ , a wiki community hosted at MIT.

In my opinion verifiable info such as when it started, and how it fits into the wider Scratch community, would be relevant. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A section has been added about the Scratch Wiki.221.126.234.66 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail on UI

In the UI section, there seems to be too much detail about the categories that the blocks fit into. Should it just be mentioned that there are "multiple categories", or should it stay with listing each and every category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Lambda (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

kaj

can you guys add the story of kaj? the story is: Kaj used to be an ordinary scratcher. One day, he noticed that his projects had very little views. he was angry and he said he would destroy scratch. He hacked other people and Scratch Team banned him and to this day, people are pretending to be kaj by making fake accounts and saying that they are kaj. it's a true story. don't believe me? go to Lightnin's profile. make sure you go to my profile (valehd) and check out my projects! Valehd (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like something that belongs within the Scratch community, such as on the wiki: http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Kaj . Here at English Wikipedia, we need verifiability. Community profiles and wikis rarely, if ever, count as reliable sources. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the program for computers its just not meant to be here on this page!! Lavinder111 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

here is a link for a reliable source of information about kaj: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1602339/ Valehd (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Too many primary sources

Since Wikipedia relies on secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, I will be adding more secondary and tertiary sources. Right now, there is a warning message at the top of the article that says "This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (March 2014)" Kirsten.donno (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

blocks

can there be a section about blocks? Valehd (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

1205?

Can someone fix the "first appeared" date for the test version. It obviously wasn't introduced in 1205. I'd do it, but I don't know the real year. 2620:72:0:414:8477:B316:3E1B:CA90 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Name gibberish

The end of paragraph 1 has an obvious problem. I'll try to eliminate or fix it, time permitting. It started Mar 7th I think. --Billymac00 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
== OFF-TOPIC == If I had a Wikipedia Account I could show you that on the Scratch Homepage they are featuring The Powerpuff Girls from the 2016 reboot. Hurry before it disappears! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.52.171 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What is scratch?

Scratch is a coding site were you play games that people made. You can also post a game to the puplic so people can play it. you also can have a work place were you can save creations you made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.94.182 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

English plz

Consider this:If a kid looked on Wikipedia to find out more about Scratch,would he understand the big words this page uses? CrazyMinecart88 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi CrazyMinecart88 - I've just read the article through with that in mind. It actually looks reasonably understandable to me, except perhaps the "Features and derivatives" section at the end, which is more programme-y. What are the words you're referring to? Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Correct the 'imagine' typo in the introduction para. Vaish361 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see any typos in the introduction to the article. If the typo is still in the article, please be more specific and reopen this request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Replace 'Imgaine' with 'Imagine' under 'Philosophy' section Vaish361 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Future events and announcements

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:PROMO such details should only be included if the events are notable (as established by significant coverage in independent sources) and almost certain to take place. Secondary internal details, updates and announcements without independent coverage should be hosted on the topic's official website. GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Scratch 3.0

Please be aware that on the GMT 2nd of February Scratch 3.0 releases. There is no information on this whatsoever, so it may be something to consider adding :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.222.118 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It actually came out today. So maybe you got it wrong but it was January 2nd. But I don't like the new update. It's annoying. And I've seen a lot of people who agree with me. (By the way me Scratch username is j485391) Abigail Stormhand (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I added multiple new sections on scratch 3.0 and updated to commemorate release; however, as of now, writing in the criticism section about 3.0 is too early. Not only is it very new and still getting bugs/glitches/mistakes fixed, but as the only comments and critiques are in the scratch forums and project comments, there are no reliable sources. If you do find a reliable source, feel free to add it to the "criticisms" section. Integral Python ^{click here to argue with me} 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User interface "block categories" section - add tables for blocks in built-in extensions?

I think that the extension block categories should also be in that section, as another table. They play a big part in Scratch 3.x especially, and some core functions of Scratch are now only available via extensions in 3.0. 92.236.63.92 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of doing a table for them, we could add paragraphs about them each in 2.0 and 3.x. It is a good idea, but I think adding a second table for them each is probably a little overkill, especially for three as its supposed to be adding more as time goes by. For 3 and 2.0, the tables of blocks is important as they are its key aspects. Extensions are placed in the extensions precisely because they aren't key aspects. However, I do think that adding paragraphs that talk about the extensions does seem like a good idea that wouldn't waste space. I'll see what I can do if I have time. _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 15:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Article layout

The order of sections seems wrong. "Criticism"(s) surely belong near the bottom. "History" should be no higher than it has to be to give context to the rest of the text - certainly below discussion on features and usage. "Features" belong near the top - to explain rapidly what the subject is about, although derivatives could stay just above "See also". Varybit (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Further, given that Scratch is used increasingly in RAD (don't ask me why) I think some text needs to change from the assumption that it is only about education or only about games (the way I read it, even saying "Scratch is not exclusively for creating games" is making just such an assumption). Varybit (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)