Great intro. If you already know the basics, you probably don't need this course though. Not much of a deep dive, more of a "skim the surface" type course. Week 4 on IO was the most beneficial for me.
Very detailed, nice introduction to golang's basic concepts. Might need to google to find better ways to handle some requirements of the assignments, but overall a cool programming language to learn.
創建者 andrew a•
創建者 Eduardo F S•
創建者 Diego M G•
創建者 Noname N•
創建者 Åmaach Ã•
創建者 Jose S•
創建者 ILYAS N•
創建者 Yoyler M•
創建者 Danh N•
創建者 KOLISETTY S S•
創建者 Bhargavi V•
創建者 Govindarajulu G•
創建者 yichen z•
創建者 David K•
The things I liked more: good introductory videos, so far the course seems to be structured well
The things I liked less: forums are filled with requests to grade assignments, with very sporadic discussion of the course material; it's unclear what language features to explore in the golang documentation and how much exploration is acceptable - for instance, it's unclear sometimes when coming from other programming languages, the peculiarity, and advantages of slices - a deeper discussion on the subject would be appreciated. I tried giving fair assessment on peer-graded assignments but the feedback options are quite limited, copy/pasted formatted code from a terminal in the feedback would be more useful, I think - the current form field is pretty limiting.
創建者 Andy M•
Content is really good with a good pace (as long as you already know some programming).
Modules short enough and have a lot of detail however, you still need to read the documentation as the course doesn't spoon feed you every bit of syntax you need for the assessments. Personally think this is great as makes you do a little bit of reading and searching for the answers to help enforce the information provided.
Only issue is the assessments words can be confusing and often asked for things that are then not checked during the peer-grading. As an example one assessment stats "the program should create an empty integer slice of size (length) 3" but this is never checked by the reviewer.
創建者 Inpyo H•
The course teaches basic with minimal examples. To complete course assignments later on, you need to do some research on your own to figure out. If you are already an experienced programmer I doubt this is a concern. But if you are a completely new comer, this maybe a road-block.
So my suggestion for improvement is provide some guide for students in searching certain necessary APIs that maybe needed to complete assignments.
This is not a course designed you to understand mechanisms of Golang internally but rather really, to "get started with basic Golang coding".
創建者 Oleg D•
The tasks are not very obvious, the criteria for evaluating students ' work leave much to be desired - you can write everything that works, nothing about the code style or the acceptability of any moves.
I think the course has a strange niche - beginners with 0 experience will find it difficult to understand what was meant, and those who have programming experience will easily complete a month-long course in a week, even after missing a few days.
I think it's good for someone like me who writes some code, but you need to quickly clarify some basic things.
創建者 Eike M T•
I'd highly recommend the course. Professor Harris is an excellent instructor. It would be nice, though, if adapt the course's material would be adapted to the current version of Go. For example, with the introduction of Go Modules, the idea of having a single directory for all Go code (the GOPATH) has been dropped. Thus, in the beginning of the course I had to read through additional manuals and best practices to find out how to organize my code. Still, the course is a great introduction to the Go language. Thank you very much!
創建者 Sergey F•
Overall the course is very helpful to get into the basics of the Golang language, but I see some areas which definitely should be improved. The main issue I see for myself was assignments. The task description is very blurry and you can't really understand what is really expected, what are acceptance criteria, and how to assess someone's submission. For instance all of the "Peer review" contains phrases like "check that output correct", but how should I know that it's correct? Why no correct example is given?
創建者 Royce H•
Course in entry level from a golang perspective but you do need some programming experience. I'm hoping the instructor gets better with follow on courses. There are lots of references to things we will learn and there are gaps in material covered versus some of the programming assignments. Early course needs some explanation of differences of golang on windows, linux, mac as peer reviewed assignments may run on your system but not person who is peer reviewing.
創建者 Anna S•
The grading system for p2p assignments is a bit confusing: it looks like it makes it easy to misclick the first question ("the program is written 3 pt" vs "the program compiles 5pt"), which people do quite often (e.g. they select 3pt instead of 5pt, and then select all the additional points that actually *require* running the program).
It would be great to instead have an automatic build system that checks that the .go file can be compiled.
創建者 Edwin D•
As an introduction to programming in Go, the course was fine. Particularly the opportunity to work on different exercises was useful. However, even when I only have a couple of weeks working with Go, I found it a bit too basic. There were a few mistakes in some of the slides and I disagree with a few explanations from the professor, but I believe those are minor details. In general I think the course is good and worth my time.
It was a great course! Especially, after the test was submitted, it was a great learning experience due to the mechanism that students could check the code with each other. Unfortunately, before I submitted my test, I felt that I had less opportunity to learn how to share code tips within the coursera. I felt that it would be even better if the students could learn more from each other.
創建者 Harshavardhan R•
I have audited this course. The explanation is very crisp. All the concepts were covered clearly. Assignments are challenging and I found them interesting. Must take course for beginners. I have given 4* as I felt the author must have emphasised a little bit more on methods(at least introduction on their working) as some assignments required their understanding. I felt that to be a miss.