Talk:Alternatives to Scratch

Relating to Scratch

A user has claimed that this does not meat the wiki editing guidelines. I am agreeing with this statement for the following reasons. If this wiki is to do with Scratch then why are we talking about alternatives to it. This wiki is called the Scratch Wiki. Those are my reasons for supporting the point. I would like other users comments to decide what to do about this article. A large amount of editors need to agree so i am asking for opinions. I have set up a format for replies. You can see this in the EDITOR.
Minerman6 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


What Counts

What counts as an alternative programming language? E.g., what's the criterion by which Java isn't included? (Not that I'd want to add it -- what I want to add are Logo and Scheme :-). —Brian Harvey (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think alternatives to Scratch are defined by whether they are drag and drop programming languages just like Scratch is.
WeirdF (talk | contribs)
Nope, for example BASIC (which should be capitalized because it's an acronym, by the way) is text-based.
Maybe the relevant criterion is "meant to be kid-friendly"? —Brian Harvey (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's just 'programming lanuages which are not too advanced'. So, we would never add C++ or Assembly to this list, would we?
All righty then! I added Logo. —Brian Harvey (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Is there a reason why Python is an "animation alternative" instead of a "programming alternative?" It is definitely a programming language and certainly isn't just used for animation... Can I (or you :P) move it? scmb1(talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, I have no idea why it was under animation alternatives, well spotted!
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are they all free?

Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Flash developing isn't free, and I'm sure others aren't as well.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ooh... gonna add a mention that not all of the programs are free.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Most of these alternatives are free." "Please keep in mind that some of the following programs are not without charge." Already said most are.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would this be a alternative?

Lately i have been working on lazarus (pascal) and found it easy to learn. lazarus Its fun for me to learn but would it count as an alternative?
Slinger (talk | contribs) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think Scratch makes it easier, go ahead and add it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok :)
Slinger (talk | contribs) 17:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


I'm adding short descriptions why they're good alternatives; but I have no experience with stuff like StarLogo TNG and Flash. Please help add detail there. Thanks! :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I really like what you've done there! It looks so much neater! :)
Slinger (talk | contribs) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Pascal really an alternative?

I'm not sure. It could be because it has very clear syntax that is often easy to understand(maybe it doesn't but as a Pascal programmer myself I think it does :P). But on the other hand it's basically the brother of C as Pascal can very easily be translated to C without much extra code. So it's also an advanced language. I'm not sure if it counts or not so I'd like your opinions.
Slinger (talk | contribs) 12:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the first sentence of the article, it says alternatives can be used if one "wants a more challenging programming tool", so I think as long as it isn't ridiculously complicated as a programming language, and Pascal isn't, then it should be fine :)
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 12:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying! I'ts not ridiculously complicated so I think it's fine.
Slinger (talk | contribs) 12:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Should BYOB/Snap! be included? It's like a Scratch mod (BYOB is, but Snap! is written from scratch in JS), but it's also not. It's also a powerful and advanced GUI/drag-n-drop language, but can be simple to use as well. I think it should be, but SpiritMaster removed it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello (yeah, I came back after about a year). BYOB is still a Scratch mod. It uses all of Scratch features just with a few more. The interface is the same too. Nearly all of the added blocks are just to aid new block creation. It just hasn't changed too much. Take ScratchJr for example. You could count that as an alternative. It is a mod, the blocks have the same purpose, but it has been completely re-done.
That's roughly what I think. Now all that's left to say is that I hope I'm not edit conflicted.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. The blocks, and features, are for higher-level programming. Examples: run/call, the block/script, warp, script variables, clone, storing sprites in variables, etc. It seems like there are certainly many changes.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of warp. :| Anyway, it does have many changes, but if somebody completely new to BYOB opened it up, they probably wouldn't see any difference except for the default sprite. It is a very unique mod (in the sense that most just add a pile of blocks to the program), but I just don't think it is unique enough.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Warp is new in Snap! 4.0. Anyways, Snap! is different enough from Scratch, especially from 2.0.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ohkay. Have you got a preview?
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It finally loaded... Well, let me give you a simple reason: it is a Scratch mod.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) Whoops, no timestamp.
Except it's not. Snap! 4.0 is not directly based on the Scratch source code. It's inspired, but not a modified version.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Inspired? It has the same block palette and the same blocks, just with some added on. Like the page says, if one gets bored with Scratch, they can use an alternative to it. BYOB isn't really an alternative, just Scratch with extra features.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Scratch inspired them to do that. :) Why don't you ask on the forum topic whether they consider it a modification, or an inspired, but more powerful, programming tool.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Snap! should be kept on the page. Although it originally was a Scratch modification, it is now a programming language in its own right and is much more complex, being able to do as much as other programming languages and alternatives listed on this page.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I say it should be included. BYOB is a perfect step up from Scratch: it's the same old feel but with new functionality to learn more about coding. Just because it's a mod (which it's not as of Snap!/4.0) doesn't mean it can't be an alternative.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yay. Thanks, sci.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Roblox be added?

Roblox teaches coding and 3D modeling. Also I found some proof it's used in education here.
PrincessPandaLover (talk | contribs) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What should we keep?

A lot of the languages here aren't really related to Scratch and just seem to be listed randomly. The point should be languages that are somehow similar to Scratch and languages one might consider instead of Scratch, rather than before or after. Which ones should remain and which ones should we remove? I think we should definitely keep stuff like Alice and Stencyl, but remove stuff like Pascal.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • This page was last modified on 8 April 2016, at 08:32.