Learner Reviews & Feedback for C++ For C Programmers, Part B by University of California, Santa Cruz
About the Course
Top reviews
CK
Jan 31, 2019
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.
AP
Aug 23, 2020
From History to Today's Programming World, every session lookout from Great perspective & passes through students that's really appreciate.
76 - 90 of 90 Reviews for C++ For C Programmers, Part B
By Abhinav S
•Aug 22, 2020
Very well structured
By Aryan P
•Oct 17, 2022
good
By Abhishek R
•Apr 7, 2022
good
By Prathamesh S
•Nov 6, 2020
Nice
By YEDURADA J K
•Aug 11, 2020
nice
By Raghav K
•Jun 22, 2020
yeah
By Jack B
•Dec 1, 2019
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.
By Michał K
•Nov 29, 2019
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.
By Deleted A
•Mar 6, 2018
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.
By Yusong Z
•Apr 17, 2020
No better than the first course, yet with less peer student studying at the same time (wait a long time before homework reviewed)
By Shivansh J
•Aug 29, 2022
There is a lot of prerequisite for this course.
By YC X
•May 23, 2019
Not very detail
By Nguyá»…n V H
•May 29, 2021
not time
By Stefano F
•Dec 17, 2020
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
•Mar 1, 2021
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!
Coursera Footer
