3 ms·

I second that, it's been the best course I've taken up on coursera so far (with Dan Boneh's crypto). The lectures are great, but the best for me was the high qu

by epsylon 13y ago

I second that, it's been the best course I've taken up on coursera so far (with Dan Boneh's crypto). The lectures are great, but the best for me was the high quality provided course notes. I read those in my morning and evening commutes and I didn't even have to watch the videos! The exercises were well crafted, guiding you part by part to build your program, and challenging enough that you learned something valuable. It definitely made me interested in exploring more the three languages presented - ML, Racket and Ruby. I'm currently taking the second Scala course and I have to say it's a bit of a disappointment so far. Martin Odersky's part was good, but I didn't really like Erik Meijer's teaching style (I understood Futures and Promises better after reading a few articles about these). I haven't caught up with Roland Kuhn's part yet. However I've been incredibly frustrated with the exercises. They are tedious, but for the wrong reasons: you have to make a lot of guesses on what are exactly the semantics of what you're supposed to implement, sifting through the forum and the FAQ for relevant information. After you've submitted, you now have to wait for a long time (between 20 and 100 minutes) for the automatic grader to tell you whether your guess about what exactly you had to implement was right or wrong. It's still an interesting course, and it's worth just for the sake of getting your hands into some Scala code, but there's that caveat.

prawks 13y ago
> They are tedious, but for the wrong reasons: you have to make a lot of guesses on what are exactly the semantics of what you're supposed to implement, sifting through the forum and the FAQ for relevant information. I look at their exercises more from a "I'll do it until I feel I have learned the core concepts" rather than "I'll do it until the grader gives me 100%". If you're not taking the course for credit, your goal should be learning, not grades. That's what it's all about for me, and learning reactive/functional/Scala programming has little to do with debugging a black box of a grading system. (Totally agree for those people who paid to receive credit, it must be very frustrating at times)
- skwirl 13y ago
  If the lectures do not do a good job of teaching the material and the assignments do not actually do a good job of testing your understanding of the material, what is the point of the course? I think epsylon is accurately presenting the prevailing opinion of the course. It's not very good and is a time sink for all the wrong reasons. If the grader is marking you off on a certain aspect of the assignment, how do you know you have actually learned the core concepts? How do you know you aren't missing something important? The problem with "doing it until I feel I have learned the core concepts" is that I don't know what I don't know (unknown unknowns). That's part of why a structured course is supposed to be valuable, because it doesn't let me skip important concepts. This course can be salvaged the second time around, but it is going to require a bit of polishing.
  - platz 13y ago
    The only one that drove me a little nuts was the demux assignment, but I thought Meijer's videos were fine and haven't had the grader problems others have had (yet).

by epsylon 13y ago

prawks 13y ago

> They are tedious, but for the wrong reasons: you have to make a lot of guesses on what are exactly the semantics of what you're supposed to implement, sifting through the forum and the FAQ for relevant information. I look at their exercises more from a "I'll do it until I feel I have learned the core concepts" rather than "I'll do it until the grader gives me 100%". If you're not taking the course for credit, your goal should be learning, not grades. That's what it's all about for me, and learning reactive/functional/Scala programming has little to do with debugging a black box of a grading system. (Totally agree for those people who paid to receive credit, it must be very frustrating at times)

skwirl 13y ago
If the lectures do not do a good job of teaching the material and the assignments do not actually do a good job of testing your understanding of the material, what is the point of the course? I think epsylon is accurately presenting the prevailing opinion of the course. It's not very good and is a time sink for all the wrong reasons. If the grader is marking you off on a certain aspect of the assignment, how do you know you have actually learned the core concepts? How do you know you aren't missing something important? The problem with "doing it until I feel I have learned the core concepts" is that I don't know what I don't know (unknown unknowns). That's part of why a structured course is supposed to be valuable, because it doesn't let me skip important concepts. This course can be salvaged the second time around, but it is going to require a bit of polishing.
- platz 13y ago
  The only one that drove me a little nuts was the demux assignment, but I thought Meijer's videos were fine and haven't had the grader problems others have had (yet).