Learner Reviews & Feedback for C++ For C Programmers, Part B by University of California, Santa Cruz

learned alot

Nice course

Excellent

Good Job

Useful

Best

Good

I enjoyed this course a great deal. The review of C++ and introduction of C++11 is exactly what I was looking for. The Hex Game assignment were fun. I was impressed at how the Monte-Carlo method could be used to create an AI player for a game.

Material is good. Interesting assignments. Homework assignments should be graded at least once by computer(like some test or using static analysis tools). Peer-to-peer reviews should be done using code review tools.

I wish that there was some interactive aspect of the class, like mentors or teaching assistants to ask questions of. But besides that, I learned a lot. Thanks.

Ira Pohl is a great professor. There were a few glitches in the videos, but overall a nice course.

Good course and homework but Forum has been totally abandoned by organizers, a bit of a shame

I've audited this course. I was very intersting & useful course for me. Thanks.

thank this course is very good

Very well structured

Nice

nice

yeah

I was hoping that by taking a C++ for C programmers that I could skip over all of the stuff like 'this is a variable, this is how to write a function, this is how to compile your program....' and get to the nitty gritty details of modern C++ programming. While I did learn some new things, I also ended up taking a different course on a different website to really update myself. I did have to slog through the basics but it was a lot more comprehensive about the standard template library and details about C++ 11 and beyond.

Do not need C understanding to finish that course, Professor tries basically to scare everyone, but you can do that course with no programming background (you WILL struggle a bit) and easily if you have any programming background. Not much C++ learning, mostly Algos. HUGE amounts of mistakes, there is no thorough errata, you have to guess what the hell is happening and what is correct.

This was more of a "Learn Dijkstra's Algorithm using C++" rather than a "Learn C++" class. I felt like the lectures were more focused on algorithms (Dijkstra's, graph theory, etc) rather than learning about the features available in C++ and when to use them.

No better than the first course, yet with less peer student studying at the same time (wait a long time before homework reviewed)

Not very detail

not time

The material of part B is better than part A, but the assignments are somewhat disconnected from the material covered. It would be preferable to have a higher number of shorter assignments and have them more focused on particular aspects of the language.

The other main issue is the grading via peer review: plagiarism is rampant, I suspect some people just submit empty files initially (I saw a few of those) to gain access to peer code to review and easily copy. A couple of people I reviewed had submitted my own code a couple of days after I completed the assignment and was waiting for a grade! They just removed my name from the top of the file, not even a serious attempt at covering their tracks. Also peer review is very inconsistent and the grade you get will not necessarily reflect the quality of you work. It would be preferable to have an automated grading like the Algorithm course by Robert Sedgewick (which I highly recommend, but uses Java, not C++).