Sprite animation

[richmond62]

Personally I do not find these articles help to make things any clearer: however, your mileage may vary:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070331130 ... etter3.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20080612190 ... etter3.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20080612190 ... etter3.php

All the stuff with custom properties seem unnecessary and only serves to over-complicate matters.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

Good article that's still relevant, thanks for posting the links.
Only the first Demo stack link still works in this Archive.org copy.
Maybe we can make an updated GPL open-source version.

I'd argue that user Custom Properties are great for storing object attributes (a LOT like Object Oriented Programming 'objects'). It allows you to store values related to a control / scriptObject without making bunches of global variables or without storing lots of info in fields or some other method. In my opinion it allows the scripts to read better as well, as long as you name the property in a way that helps it make sense that is.
Like so:
set the InstancesColor of me to "255,0,0"
-- In this case you would also need to add a 'setProp InstancesColor' (a method in OOP speak) handler that actually does set the fillColor of the object.

and then you can refer to the property from scripts in other objects similarly:
set the the InstancesColor of graphic"GraphicObjCopy34' to "255,0,0"

and when you make a copy (instance) of the such an object it retains the property in the new object, and then allows you change the property in the new copy independently of the original's setting for that property.

This is very similar to the concepts of OOP, in Objective C or C++ with GNOME GObjects or similar, that I talk about in the Extension Builder thread I've been writing.

[richmond62]

Alright; let me rephrase that:

Custom Properties are way beyond the conceptual capabilities of 9 - 11 year olds.

So . . . we probably need a spot of "bifurcation":

Examples and related classes should carry some sort of stamp:
-

SShot 2024-02-19 at 17.01.14.png (24.83 KiB) Viewed 481 times

-

[OpenXTalkPaul]

Alright; let me rephrase that:

Custom Properties are way beyond the conceptual capabilities of 9 - 11 year olds.

So . . . we probably need a spot of bifurcation:

Examples and related classes should carry some sort of stamp:
-

I think maybe some 9-11 year old kids might be more open to new or somewhat abstract concepts then many of the much older people that I've worked with.

[richmond62]

I think maybe some 9-11 year old kids might be more open to new or somewhat abstract concepts

Their brains are not capable of abstraction until just about "when the hormones" hit.

This lines up with Piaget's Formal Operational Phase:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_ ... evelopment

12 years of teaching xTalk (erm; LiveCode) with children has confirmed Piaget's findings.