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 Krishna M A•
More examples can be added in the videos illustrating basic operations.
創建者 Nafisur A•
Completely theoretical course. Only assignments are coding practical.
創建者 Michael N•
Too much water, a common blah blah blah blah course for housewives
創建者 Tim W•
Content reasonably good. Some errors in quizes and assignments.
創建者 Antoine V M•
Too simple for intermediate developers (targetted profile)
創建者 Maksims M•
2 times received incorrect grades from other students.
創建者 Saurabh S•
Sweet and simple introduction to the GoLang.
創建者 Roberto M P•
The grading systems is somehow inefficient.
創建者 Luke S•
This course is a little too basic & slow.
創建者 Fanchao C•
To many coding errors on the slides！
創建者 Petr N•
Assignments are super weird
創建者 Conor T•
創建者 Bas v G•
Sloppy and not an intermediate course.
Bugs in quizzes, which haven't been fixed in 2+ years. Errors in the videos, sloppy assignment descriptions, and so on.
The course says it aims at intermediate programmers, and then proceeds to still explain almost every single basic programming concept.
The assignments are peer reviewed, and it barely adds value except seeing someone else's code. The review criteria are very basic, and should just have been automated. The assignments are decent practice, and are open enough to at least encourage you to do some research. However, they can be frustrating if you follow the assignment instructions to the letter, as one of the examples contains spaces and is not parseable using the tools that are given in the lectures. I don't think the lecturer tested this, and he certainly didn't update anything based on all the forum feedback.
There are some positives. The lecturer is pleasant to listen to, and the content is spread out bite size.
創建者 Matt G•
I was underwhelmed by this course, and will not be taking the two follow-up courses in the series. The instructor seems like a pleasant fellow, but the lectures are more-or-less useless. For example, you need to use Scanner to get proper input, but that isn't even taught at all--leaving it up your own Google-foo capabilities. The assignments are confusingly worded and open to interpretation, which I feel like puts the "peer reviewers" (you and me) in an awkward position. Go itself has also changed over the last 4 years, so certain things that are lectured on are now deprecated. I'd recommend finding another means of learning Go.
創建者 m z•
transcripts are illegible due to lack of spacing. a lot of verbal redundancy. go reference material links not linked from course description. first assignment wants a screenshot. subsequent ones are peer reviewed and never e.g. programatically compared against test cases as in other coursera courses. some assignment prompts lack detail e.g. why initialize slice to 3 elements when taking in user input and displaying sorted slice?
covers some language basics, no better than exercism's go track which is free https://exercism.org/tracks/go/
創建者 Zack K•
At time this course feels more like an intro to programming course than an intro to go. The assignments should be graded using coursera's unit tests rather than peer reviewed. Peer review's are not comprehensive, and I doubt most people are actually checking the code. Also, having people download other people's code is a security risk. Wouldn't be hard to put something malicious in the code that executes it is run (or even when it is opened)
創建者 mashiro w•
Pretty decent course with two flaws:
tagged as an Intermediate course while going from very basic stuff.
most of the assignments can be script graded while using peer review and people just grade it in pure randomness. Somebody just gives you a full point while others grade you on a error handling issue considering the assignment is just a toy program showing you can use a slice or something
Course was very introductory on high-level topics for a class that assumes you are an intermediate or higher programmer. Requirements for weekly assignments were confusing and left a lot of unanswered questions on how certain things should be handled. Peer-based grading clogged the message board with "please grade my assignment" posts and unequal grading standards.
創建者 Tim “ C•
It's too text heavy for basic comp sci topics. It's good information but not on topic.
The topic is 'Getting started with Go' not 'Getting started with Computer Architecture'.
There should be more Go specific focused talks and assume a base level of comp sci from your audience.
Or, make basic comp sci a requisite to this course.
創建者 Aaron B•
This course was a mess. Slides full of syntax errors, assignments require understanding not yet delivered, poor organization of content within video lectures, and so much more. If this was 10 bucks on Udemy I'd understand, but for a university level course, this is a bit sad.
創建者 Deleted A•
Peer grading is the laziest form of grading. Do some work, write unit tests, provide a decent grader. For a so called intermediate level course there is too much bla-bla and too little go specific material. Programming assignments are few are not challenging to say the least.
This was not a productive course at all! there are many syntaxes problems in the codes which by the way are only shown in the slides, first I tried to learn go using this course but now I decided to learn go using other online resources
創建者 Paul R•
The code assignments should be graded through unit tests not peer reviewed, I had code that was working and unit tested (so I knew it worked) and someone graded that is didn't work, which was incorrect.
創建者 Peter M•
Why say something in once concise sentence when you can say it in hundreds of words? There is so much unnecessary waffling in all these Go courses. Not to mention mistakes.