4 ms·
You didn't even mention Paxson and Shenker, who are big in ICSI as well. However, 161 is substantially easier than 162 doing the substitution you recommend shou
by sbuccini 10y ago
You didn't even mention Paxson and Shenker, who are big in ICSI as well. However, 161 is substantially easier than 162 doing the substitution you recommend should reduce suffering.
- CalChris 10y agoI thought 162 was easy but then I knew a shit ton going in. My GSIs did not like me. No, they didn't. I sat in on 161 since I live in the area. Some of it is a repeat of 70 material. I just think it's a great course. I'd been a reader for 61C (another great course) and I'd suggested adding a stack smashing lab. This was before Wagner created 161 and they were ummm hesitant to teach undergrads the dark arts.