Dec 20, 2019
I liked it, it costed me a little because I am not a C programmer with big experience, and this course I feel is focused on C programmers that want to know how to "translate" their code to C++
Oct 17, 2016
Just right for programmers seeking to update their skills to the new V11 C++. I recommend getting the book by the author that helps along with a text or Coursera course on Algorithms.
創建者 Apoorv R•
Jun 24, 2018
Good introductory course to C++ basics.
創建者 Sahil k s•
Jan 22, 2020
It was a great learning experience.
創建者 Keerti R k•
Jul 23, 2018
good and nice for programmers
創建者 Monarth S•
Nov 04, 2016
Very Nice Course...
創建者 Sourabh S•
Apr 28, 2019
can be better
創建者 SAPTARSHI D•
Jul 07, 2019
創建者 Nayan k•
Aug 18, 2018
創建者 Sayan M•
Jul 14, 2018
創建者 Ramani k•
Jul 18, 2018
創建者 Richard D•
Jul 10, 2017
The course provides good information, but I would not say it was the best-designed. The lectures were informative and the programming assignments were challenging, but I wouldn't say the really related to each other as much as I'd like. I would think that the important thing for C programmers moving to C++ would be to learn the exact syntax for how things are done in C++. At times this was lacking. The flip side was I didn't feel that the extended explanations of basic CS algorithms such as Minimum Spanning Tree and Shortest Path was necessary. I knew those algorithms earlier.
But my biggest complaint was the basic inattention. I felt like the course was on auto pilot. At one point a submission of mine was returned. I asked the forum for some kind of assistance or explanation from a mentor and no reply was given. I re-did the assignment and it was accepted but there was still little comment. And at the end of the course, my final assignment was only checked by two graders instead of three.
Was any human actually supervising things? I saw no evidence. Discouraging.
On the whole the least impressive of the four courses I've taken so far using Coursera. Which is a shame b/c it's arguably the most important to me.
May 04, 2016
The course content is good. But it needs some polishing...
The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines.
Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated???
創建者 Nayef C•
Dec 20, 2016
Do this course for the assignments and to have something that keeps you on schedule. But be prepared to do your own research on topics.
The professor goes off on pointless tangents forever. C is also supposed to be a prerequisite but then he ends also ends up explaining basic C (prefixing his explanation with you should know this). He then goes into these very specific, typical academic-style examples that he spends time talking about them (again pointless). And then very little time is left to explain the actual new C++ stuff, and he explains it assuming you kind-of know what he's talking about. So you'll have to stop the video and look up the topic online.
創建者 Bingen E•
Jan 13, 2017
It accomplishes the main goal: help with the leap from C to C++, but:
- It's damn slow. I had to use the 1.5x or 2x speed all the time, and I'm not native English.- The format of the slides is really ugly (e.g., those bullet points in the code)- No lecture notes are provided- The references are to his (expensive) books instead- No source code of examples is provided either- Graph theory is interesting, but out of scope. Waste of time for those who already know it are not interested in and just want to learn C++. It would be better to provide references for optional reading or reviewing.
創建者 Michal 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.
創建者 harry l•
Aug 14, 2019
i must admit that i thought i would gain some more basic knowledge on c++
some namespace discussions , oop , special pointers etc.
the exercises were hard but... no real grasp of the c++ advantages.
i don't think i'll enroll to part B at this moment but im sure am encouraged to keep on learning this language also because of this course, and that's the reason for the third star i gave.
創建者 Deleted A•
Mar 07, 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. Additionally, the homeworks were pretty lopsided, with some weeks being very lightweight and others being very intensive.
創建者 Juanhao Z•
Apr 10, 2017
I thought at first according to the title of this course, that it should be an intro for c programmers. But it is more like a brush-up for already c++ programmers. Be ready to take some other course or reading parallel. Otherwise the homeworks are absolutely interesting and suitable for new-comer. It would be better if more videos with more details could be made.
創建者 Ahmed E•
Feb 01, 2020
the course lacks concentration on c++ as it most of the time considerate on graph algorithms instead of c++ features and STL I was hoping to finddd more details about C++ 11 and 14 features with examples and assignments
創建者 Derick R•
Aug 30, 2017
Too much focus on implementing Graph algorithms and too little about actually learning C++. The homework assignments time allocation (2 * 2 hours) is by far not enough to be able to complete the assignments.
創建者 Guilherme M F•
Oct 19, 2016
The course presents the topics in a non-linear manner. It should be called "Learning graphs with C++"
創建者 Tanushree v•
Jul 20, 2018
good course but trainer doesnt go in deep
創建者 YC X•
Jun 10, 2019
Not that detail.
創建者 Tuo L•
Oct 22, 2017
I gave this course two star for taking my responsibility. The course is bad designed. The homework has less clue and you may only find 50% or less related knowledge from the lectures. The final quiz is ridiculous (too many questions about number calculation and I cannot believe there are questions like what did D. Ritchie B. Stroustrup E. Dijkstra L. Euler do or invent?!!!). It seems that the professor or his assistant did not put too much effort into providing this course. Though I learned something from it and it pushed me to learn several c++ skills, in a google searching way.
Apr 05, 2016
- Assumptions about the student are not clear, before starting the course.
Instructor examples are not practical in all contexts.
Jump to dijkstra in very second week, without clarity on major C++ concepts and examples, is too much an expectation from the student switching from C to C++ for the first time.
Confusion with deadline for assignments.
too many lectures during later week courses, as if the effort is to crunch everything in that week and complete the course.
If its spaced properly with examples and problems over few more weeks, it would help.
創建者 Dimitris K•
Jan 14, 2019
The video sessions are nice and very informative. However, the examples in the videos are a "toy" compared to the assignment of implementing a Monte Carlo simulation for Dijkstra's algo. The directions in the description of the assignment are very poorly written and the specs are blurry and difficult to clarify by yourself. The MST assignment is much easier, but still the directions are not well prepared.