It was good to avoid redundantly learning what C language is. Graph theory and Monte-Carlo methodology were fun. I enjoyed listening history of computer science and programming languages.
From History to Today's Programming World, every session lookout from Great perspective & passes through students that's really appreciate.
By Stefano F•
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++).
By Florian M H•
I am a professional C-Programmer and wanted to learn C++ fast and well. What I didn't like about tboth of these courses: 1. Whoever has too much time (unlike e.g. working parents like me!) can take this course. There's a lot of wasted time where the professor told about C++ history. The speaking speed is extremely slow btw. A lot of wasted time here. 2. Why only ppts? Why so lenghty and unclear explanations? Why don't you show live coding and explain the pitfalls? So much faster to get a good tutor from YOUTUBE. 3. All in all: You can save 50% of your time watching and re-coding a good YOUTUBE tutor, and maybe the last 10% or so you can add supplementary online courses. That's my recommendation!