Add Interactive Code Blocks to API Documentation

Feature Requests Documentation Features
#1

It is currently too hard to test or understand simple code examples on the Developer Hub without switching over to Studio, setting up a new place, and manually trying it out.

This creates a high barrier for new developers or event participants who are just learning the platform. Even with clear examples, they often struggle to visualize what the code does, especially if they don’t already have a test place open or don’t fully understand how to structure a working script from scratch.

If this issue is addressed, it would improve my development experience because new learners could instantly understand what each code snippet does by running it in place, without leaving the documentation.

As someone who organizes workshops and helps onboard new developers, I constantly see people hit this problem. They copy a code sample from the docs, paste it into Studio, and it breaks due to context or missing setup. An interactive preview would eliminate that and make early learning easier.

Feature Proposal:

Allow certain code blocks (especially for beginner-friendly APIs or patterns) to be run directly on the DevHub through an embedded mini simulator or sandboxed preview window. For example:

  • print() statements output to a console viewer below the code block
  • A simple Part.Touched example shows a visual trigger
  • UI creation snippets show the actual UI on the page

This could be limited to a curated set of use cases or added as a toggle per section (e.g., “Try This Code”).

Use Cases:

  • Teaching scripting at beginner workshops or summer camps
  • Self-taught devs trying to understand how properties like Transparency or CFrame work
  • Quick testing of basic logic like loops, functions, or events without setting up a place file
  • Onboarding new team members who are new to Lua
3 Likes
#2

I see the concept and why it could be useful, but it’s definitely not going to happen, as there are many concerns.

It’s a lot of work with low reward. All you have to do is open Roblox Studio and you have a 3D simulation, advanced debugging tools, and an intuitive code editor.

No need to implement Roblox Studio on the web. Not to mention that the Roblox team did not create this forum website all by themselves — it’s from Discourse — which makes it even harder for them to expand on it.

Instead of expecting this to be a thing, simply create visual explanations, and maybe put a video or images of the result of the code. That’s how you enhance the learning process, not by removing the need to open a program that the tutorial is likely all about anyways.

If you really do want built-in execution, you can use and perhaps implement Lua executors into your documentation website.

And really, you shouldn’t be expecting any similar features on the DevForum anyways. They don’t even have proper syntax highlighting at the moment, which is pathetic honestly.

#3

I get where you’re coming from, but this request isn’t about replacing Studio or putting a full 3D engine on the web, it’s about improving onboarding through selective interactivity in documentation.

New developers don’t always know how to set up context, where to put a script, what services need to exist, what objects should be in Workspace, etc. Clicking “Try This Code” and seeing the result (even just a print statement or UI element) removes that gap faster than videos or static examples ever will.

The Developer Hub assumes users already know where and how to run code. That seems minimal but is a huge gap for beginners (we’ve all been there). When someone has to bounce between DevHub, Studio, and their own testing setup just to figure out how Touched or TweenPosition works, you lose momentum, and momentum is everything when building confidence.

And if they lose that momentum early, they’ll just go somewhere else - YouTube, external tools, or other platforms entirely - where the experience feels more guided and less fragmented. Roblox shouldn’t be sending new developers elsewhere to learn how to use its own tools.

Also, this wouldn’t need to run full Studio. Even a limited, sandboxed environment for text output, UI previews, or simple Part manipulations would go a long way. W3Schools, JSFiddle, or Unity’s Playground already use this model effectively for onboarding.

Not saying it needs to handle physics or full gameplay simulation just enough to give new users clarity without breaking their flow.

If Roblox wants to expand its developer base, especially from schools, workshops, or first-time creators, this kind of guided interactivity is how you draw attention on your own terms, and let users feel mastery without making them ask for it.

#4

I never said it was supposed to replace Studio, but it would essentially be a worse version of Studio which is highly unnecessary to have to maintain as well.

Maybe they should learn that? All tutorials require some knowledge beforehand to some extent.

No, literally — 1 click vs 0 clicks.

You make it seem as if everything has to go fast, and as if it’s tedious and slow to switch between tabs. If having two applications open at the same time is the problem, just split them up into two halves of the screen, or simply put them on two different monitors if you have multiple monitors.

But how would e.g. YouTube do it better? They’d still have to be switching between a non-interactive explanation and their own workspace.

It would be very limiting then, and either way it’s unnecessary as you have to maintain the full Studio along with a very limited version of it.

No, but Studio provides that, and is even better at ensuring clarity.

But you have to learn the real thing. If your goal is to actually learn the real thing, why use an awful version of it just for the sake of speeding up the process? It’ll never be the same as the real thing.

#5

You’re looking at this purely from the lens of a developer who already knows how to navigate the system. I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who’s taught new developers, seen drop-off firsthand, and understands the psychology behind onboarding.

You’re not wrong that people should eventually learn Studio, they will. But that doesn’t mean the first touchpoint has to involve juggling services, guessing context, or hoping a script doesn’t error because they didn’t place something in Workspace. That’s not learning. That’s friction, and in any platform growth strategy, friction is what kills retention.

You mention that Studio “provides clarity.” No, Studio provides power. Clarity comes from understanding, and that starts before full immersion. JSFiddle, Unity Playground, even W3Schools aren’t “worse versions” of their engines. They’re on-ramps, and they’re effective because they give people immediate feedback without setup cost.

You’re also assuming that time and momentum don’t matter. They do. Roblox isn’t just targeting seasoned devs anymore. We’re onboarding artists, students, educators. People with no technical background and expecting them to be excited about setting up a blank place just to see what Mouse.Hit does. That’s not strategy, that’s a bottleneck.

This is about delivering understanding sooner, so more people stay long enough to care. You don’t teach someone to drive by handing them an engine block. You start with a steering wheel, let them feel what forward means then you open the hood.

If the only answer we give to early friction is “just learn Studio,” don’t be surprised when they go learn something else.

#6

So you’re main point is that engagement should be immediate.

The thing is, it’s way more fun doing the actual thing in a way more powerful environment. Roblox Studio is not hard to use if you are simply doing the basics — it’s made for that.

Other engines like Unity are extremely slow (takes forever to download and install, takes minutes to startup, can take minutes to load simple code changes), while Roblox Studio is extremely lightweight, fast and intuitive — perfect for people, who are new and want to learn.

You also mention that they have to guess context and services etc. Why would they have to guess? They’re following a tutorial, which will teach them all they need to know.

You also mention that according to me we say “just learn Studio”, which is way off. I never said anything remotely similar. Tutorials still exist without interactive code blocks.

And as I’ve said before, don’t expect much, because they don’t even have proper syntax highlighting in code blocks on the DevForum at the moment.

#7

Right, and I’m definitely not denying that Studio is lightweight or fun, for a lot of people it absolutely is. But “fun” and “accessible” aren’t always the same thing, especially for beginners who are just trying to get their footing.

The issue isn’t Studio’s capability, it’s the gap between code examples and execution. You say “they’re following a tutorial”, but most early devs don’t follow full tutorials. They jump in from DevHub, see a line like Part.Touched:Connect(...), and try running it immediately without knowing where it belongs. Nothing on the page tells them what context is needed. That’s where we lose them. They often have no idea where that’s supposed to go, what “Part” is, or why it throws an error in Studio. That’s what I mean by “guessing context.” Not because they’re lazy but because the Doc assumes a level of setup that isn’t always intuitive. The gap between seeing code and seeing it work is wider than it should be for someone just starting.

Again, interactive code blocks aren’t replacing Studio or questioning its accessibility with tutorials, they’re minimizing friction during that first contact of being onboarded to Studio. Think of them as on-ramps or tooltips: small, optional windows into understanding, not full development sandboxes.

“Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter”. In this case, the “shepherd” is early friction. If you remove the core blocker, you keep more learners engaged longer. That doesn’t just help new developers it scales the platform’s reach.

Saying Roblox shouldn’t improve DevHub because it doesn’t even have syntax highlighting is like saying we shouldn’t pave a road because there’s a pothole in it. The platform grows by addressing weak spots, not ignoring them.

I still stand by what I said. This isn’t about replacing anything, and it doesn’t detract from how useful Studio already is. It’s about adding clarity where it’s missing. Interactive examples are a small quality-of-life feature that help more people get started, faster, without any downside to any experienced developers.

This is about making Roblox easier to approach, not dumbing it down. And if a basic preview box helps someone understand what Mouse.Hit does or what a Touched event looks like, that’s a win, for them, and for the platform long-term.

#8

Sure, but Roblox Studio is fun and accesible. That’s my point.

There’s no way that’s what a beginner would do. Most beginners aren’t even on the forum. I’m almost certain that this feature request is meant for tutorials, and that’s what my point is about; these interactive code blocks are for tutorials.

For the millionth time; you’re missing my point completely. I said that they wouldn’t even care enough, since they haven’t even added proper syntax highlighting — i said “it’s not going to happen”, not “it’s a bad idea” there.

The thing is, a “basic preview box” won’t help anyone understand what e.g. Mouse.Hit does etc.

#9

Right, I think at this point we’re just approaching the problem from different angles. Your assumption is that because Studio is both fun and accessible to you, that means it’s equally intuitive to someone who’s never opened it before. In practice, that’s not always the case and I’ve seen it firsthand.

Also, the idea that “there’s no way that’s what a beginner would do” just doesn’t hold up. They do. Constantly. Not everyone finds their way through a structured tutorial first. Many land on a page through a search, copy a snippet, and paste it straight into a Script or LocalScript without understanding context, and it breaks. That friction is real.

And yes, I got what you meant about syntax highlighting. But saying Roblox likely won’t implement something isn’t the same as saying it shouldn’t be suggested. A lack of current polish isn’t a reason to stop pushing for useful improvements, especially ones that help onboarding and scale future growth.

As for preview boxes not “helping anyone understand” things like Mouse.Hit, I disagree. Seeing a working interaction with minimal setup gives someone a much faster feedback loop than reading a block of text describing what it’s supposed to do. That kind of lightweight interactivity is exactly what makes platforms like W3Schools or Unity Playground effective for first-time learners.

Anyway, no hard feelings. I’m going to leave it here, people can read both sides and decide what seems more useful for the platform’s long-term accessibility and growth.