Scratch language

[Brian63]

I am in the very beginning phase of trying to learn coding and getting into Scratch language as my first venture. I have downloaded it and also reading a helpful companion book. However, at one point I am stuck and could use help. The book page shows this, and I circled in blue the problem part:







The orange control block does not seem to physically/logically allow for what the book displays. It only allows me to add 1 fill, not 2. But the book does display it, even describes the role of "dancing=no". So I am assuming I made a mistake somewhere.



The repeat block can allow for the number 3 OR a green operator (with nested script), but not BOTH items. When I try to move both items inside, it will not allow them. Help please? Thank you.

 

[excreationist]

Hi I have some experience in Scratch - I did a university assignment with it:


Anyway I tried to reproduce your image online:

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/713837474/editor/

Like you say it seems you can either create a "repeat" with an integer or do "repeat until" with "boolean" items (green with angled edges).

 

[Brian63]

Thank you for the response. Nice video.

I am unsure if the book was able to write that script as appears and then they copy/pasted it into the book, or if they drew the script from some paint editor, or what. I just cannot replicate it in Scratch.

There is another part in the book where I also cannot replicate their result and it seems like they skipped a step or more. I wish I could contact the author or even have a Scratch coder right behind me. It is enjoyable to learn these new skills but frustrating when things are not making sense.

 

[excreationist]

I think this is equivalent to what the book says:

 

[Brian63]

I have not tried it, but it looks like that would work. I just wonder if/how the book would make such a blunder.

There have been a handful of times where I have witnessed much more flagrant book errors, including ones from state government manuals. The local office people were stunned when it was pointed out to them.

 

[bilby]

I have not tried it, but it looks like that would work. I just wonder if/how the book would make such a blunder.

There have been a handful of times where I have witnessed much more flagrant book errors, including ones from state government manuals. The local office people were stunned when it was pointed out to them.

I have read a LOT of code examples in textbooks, and have yet to find a book which doesn’t include at least one code error.

Almost any bit of code that has ever been written contains at least one error that isn’t apparent until you try to run the code.

The proofreading process won’t find those errors; Only attempts to run the code as printed will uncover them.

Finding errors of this kind is so common that their absence is far more surprising and unexpected, to people who see a lot of such code samples in books, than their presence.

So yes, the book most certainly would make that blunder, as it’s very easy to do, and very hard for a proofreader to spot.

 

[skepticalbip]

Thus the reason for Beta releases of software; let the users help find the bugs when they try to run it.

 

[excreationist]

It looks like the picture in the book is impossible to create within Scratch though.... so maybe when they were copying the code they photoshopped the blocks rather than just using a screenshot....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have not tried it, but it looks like that would work. I just wonder if/how the book would make such a blunder.

There have been a handful of times where I have witnessed much more flagrant book errors, including ones from state government manuals. The local office people were stunned when it was pointed out to them.

State government website "campfires shall be left unattended."