Chevron Left
Вернуться к C++ For C Programmers, Part B

Отзывы учащихся о курсе C++ For C Programmers, Part B от партнера Калифорнийский университет в Санта-Крузе

Оценки: 251
Рецензии: 76

О курсе

This course is for experienced C programmers who want to program in C++. The examples and exercises require a basic understanding of algorithms and object-oriented software....

Лучшие рецензии

31 янв. 2019 г.

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.

23 авг. 2020 г.

From History to Today's Programming World, every session lookout from Great perspective & passes through students that's really appreciate.

Фильтр по:

51–75 из 75 отзывов о курсе C++ For C Programmers, Part B

автор: Deleted A

21 мая 2020 г.

Nice course

автор: Neha p

5 мая 2020 г.


автор: Malèk R

14 окт. 2020 г.

Good Job

автор: Bolusani S

5 июля 2019 г.


автор: SHUBHAM S

3 июля 2020 г.



4 июня 2020 г.


автор: Robert M

1 апр. 2017 г.

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.

автор: Kirill S

25 июня 2017 г.

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.

автор: Susan B

8 июля 2020 г.

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.

автор: Sahil M

6 апр. 2017 г.

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

автор: Stefano E

3 июня 2018 г.

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

автор: Vladimir N

23 сент. 2019 г.

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

автор: صفاء ا ع ا م

12 мая 2018 г.

thank this course is very good

автор: Abhinav S

22 авг. 2020 г.

Very well structured

автор: Prathamesh S

6 нояб. 2020 г.



11 авг. 2020 г.


автор: Raghav K

22 июня 2020 г.


автор: Jack B

1 дек. 2019 г.

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.

автор: Michał K

29 нояб. 2019 г.

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.

автор: Deleted A

6 мар. 2018 г.

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.

автор: Yusong Z

17 апр. 2020 г.

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

автор: YC X

23 мая 2019 г.

Not very detail

автор: Nguyễn V H

29 мая 2021 г.

not time

автор: Stefano F

17 дек. 2020 г.

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++).

автор: Florian M H

1 мар. 2021 г.

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!