Visa resultat

Concurrent Programming, TDA381/DIT390

1. Student of*

16 svarande

Chalmers»		6		37%
GU»		10		62%

Genomsnitt: 1.62

Your own effort

2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

16 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		1		6%
Around 20 hours/week»		9		56%
Around 25 hours/week»		3		18%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		12%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- Varied quite a bit over time.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- The second lab is so enormous. IMHO the first lab shows that concurrent programming is hard so the second lab dont need to be so big. It only wastes time with details.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- The programming assignment took several hours, especially The Pub» (Around 25 hours/week)

3. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

16 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		2		12%
75%»		8		50%
100%»		6		37%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- Went to most of the lectures but not very many of the excercises» (50%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		4		25%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		7		43%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		5		31%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Did someone show them at all? We just got a recap in time for the exam what we should know, not the same as goals. Do I have to seek them up myself?» (I have not seen/read the goals)

5. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		14		93%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- They were a bit to high, due to the introduction to Erlang was a bit tough.» (No, the goals are set too high)

6. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		5		33%
Yes, definitely»		10		66%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- The exam was biased towards message passing. Sadly I wasn"t too hot on it. One more question about monitors would have been better. (Because that was what was in old exams etc, and I bet that is a part of the course as well.)» (To some extent)
- To much programming, not enough theory.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

7. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		1		6%
Large extent»		11		68%
Great extent»		4		25%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Think that Linda and Monitor could been explained better.» (Large extent)
- The assignments in particular were very helpfull.» (Large extent)

8. To what extent has the the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		7		43%
Some extent»		5		31%
Large extent»		4		25%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.81

- Didn"t do that many excercises. The book was ok. Would have been better with more specific reading tips, not just chapter 3, because some parts were obviously not part of the intended course material. I learned a lot from by doing past exams and reviewing details in the course book.» (Some extent)
- Didn"t like the book since it felt as it didn"t realy match the rest of the course.» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes and excercises were helpful. I didn"t use the book very much.» (Large extent)

9. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		5		31%
Very well»		11		68%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- Not much info about JR-code.» (Rather well)

Study climate

10. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		6%
Rather good»		4		25%
Very good»		10		62%
I did not seek help»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- It took time to get help for programming assignments.» (Rather poor)
- Asked two questions once but got the answer that it was JR and everyone was new to it, solved it later on though, overall good.» (Rather good)
- Daniel has been outstanding in giving help and support» (Very good)

11. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		1		6%
Rather poorly»		2		12%
Rather well»		6		37%
Very well»		7		43%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

12. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		50%
High»		6		37%
Too high»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- Intense but very giving, three languages three labs a big final exam which gave alot of code.» (High)
- Assignment 2 is to big. If the majority of the students had rejects in reading week 7 for a lab that was intended to be done 3 weeks earlier.» (Too high)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		6%
Adequate»		6		37%
High»		7		43%
Too high»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- This is probably not very relevant since I am not in a chalmers program.» (Low)
- Assignment 2 again.» (High)
- I read three courses in parallell» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		12%
Good»		8		50%
Excellent»		6		37%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- The labs in this course are excellent. The info about JR was ok, good concerning that the language hardly exist. The final exam was a bit big when I in my personal opinion think that with a programming course you want to put as much of the examination in the labs as possible, perhaps it would have been possible to extend the third lab.» (Good)
- Very good material, gives a a good base knowledge of concurrent programming. Also very good for additional studies in the area.» (Excellent)
- I learned a lot from this course and enjoyed it very much.» (Excellent)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

17. Additional comments

Course Materials

18. Did you buy the course book?

Yes»		9		56%
No»		7		43%

Genomsnitt: 1.43

19. Was it useful to have downloadable code examples available for each lecture?

Yes»		14		93%
No»		1		6%
Don't know»		1

Genomsnitt: 1.06

- The slides was sometimes rather incomplete without karol"s, "between the lines", comments.» (Yes)
- The code examples was very good to get an understanding of the languages. It often was hard to follow the examples on the slides since it was broken up in smaller parts» (Yes)
- Yes, as they were syntacticly helping when programming JR and Erlang» (Yes)
- I got by fairly well with the code examples in the notes and the excercises.» (No)

20. Was it useful to have examples on the board during the lectures?

Yes»		10		62%
Yes, but they should have been in the slides as well»		6		37%
No»		0		0%
Don't know»		0

Genomsnitt: 1.37

- It"s really enjoyable to read a course with a lecturer that actually is a reasonable programmer once in a while.» (Yes)
- Very good initiative, code examples addressed by the teacher gives a better insight of the material.» (Yes)
- It was confusing to skip forward and backwards on the slides to show code examples all the time. And the code examples could have been more pseudo, higher abstraction level would make it easier to grasp I think.» (Yes, but they should have been in the slides as well)

21. On average, how would you rate the amount of material covered in one lecture?

Boringly little, I could take a nap in between slides»		0		0%
OK but more could be added»		0		0%
Just about right on average»		13		81%
OK but some material could be removed»		3		18%
Way too much to absorb per lecture»		0		0%
Don't know»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Not sure here, sometimes it felt like a lot to absorb, 50+ slides.» (Just about right on average)
- Maybe more could be added» (Just about right on average)
- I also liked the short repetition of the material from the previous lecture at the beginning.» (Just about right on average)
- There were some slides about programming logic that I neither understood nor so the relevance of. » (OK but some material could be removed)

22. How difficult was it to use JR given you did not have a proper JR book/manual?

No problem whatsoever»		0		0%
Reasonably easy»		3		20%
Not too difficult but not very easy either»		5		33%
Difficult»		4		26%
Way too difficult»		3		20%
Don't know»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- Some commands where forgotten since no book existed. For example forward ...» (Reasonably easy)
- It was doable because of good lab supervision, without it it would have been hard. » (Not too difficult but not very easy either)
- It takes a while to get used to the new concepts especially without a book.» (Not too difficult but not very easy either)
- It was quite easy since the syntax is very much like java but proper documentation would have made it much better.» (Not too difficult but not very easy either)
- This was a pretty big problem on the second assignment. It was very annoying to not be able to look up syntax etc. A good reference manual would have helped a lot.» (Difficult)
- THERE IS NO GOOD DOCUMENTATION FREELY AVAILABLE. Translations from SR to JR... COME ON!!!» (Way too difficult)

23. Would it help to have a few copies of the JR book/manual available during exercises and supervision?

Yes»		12		92%
No»		1		7%
Don't know»		3

Genomsnitt: 1.07

- It would be helpful but maybe not enough since a lot of the time we spent on the assignments was outside of the supervised hours.» (Yes)

24. How many exercises did you do?

0»		2		12%
1»		4		25%
2»		5		31%
3»		2		12%
4»		0		0%
5»		3		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- 0.5 :) Labs take precedent» (0)
- Didn"t have time to do all due to the amount of time required on the labs» (2)
- Are not sure..» (2)
- I tried all but did not have time to finish them, mostly because the labs took so much time. » (5)

Assignments

25. Trainspotting: your rating

Superb»		4		25%
Good»		9		56%
OK»		3		18%
Bad»		0		0%
Catastrophy»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- to get visual feedback from the code immidiatly was very nice.» (Superb)
- The lab was interesting and somewhat fun, but it seems to be 30% of time spent learning what to do and how it works, 70% time tweaking it to work exactly right without really learning anything. » (Good)

26. Trainspotting: how difficult was it?

Too easy»		0		0%
Easy»		3		18%
OK»		12		75%
Hard»		1		6%
Too hard»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- I"ve been working as a java-programmer full time this summer.» (Easy)
- This lab was short but I suppose it got the point across. Semaphores aren"t that complicated after all.» (Easy)

27. The Pub: your rating

Superb»		1		6%
Good»		8		50%
OK»		6		37%
Bad»		1		6%
Catastrophy»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

- message passing rocks! :)» (Good)
- a LOT of things to cover in this lab...» (OK)

28. The Pub: how difficult was it?

Too easy»		0		0%
Easy»		0		0%
OK»		6		37%
Hard»		9		56%
Too hard»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- Some key things to understand and then alot of replication of these, but it"s pleasing to give an enjoyable result.» (OK)
- Hard at first to get an overview especially since JR is so new and unfamiliar.» (OK)
- the code ended up a bit messy unfortunatly» (OK)
- This was a very challenging lab, by far the most challenging one in the course. It was also the one I learned the most from. It was however very time consuming, I think it could be shortened a bit and still be able to teach as much. The amount of time we spent on the labs was very uneven, we spent several times as much time on this one as the two other combined.» (Hard)
- To many details that can fuck up. Also if this assignment is going to stay some starting material would be good. Some skeleton code or tips on what (and how) to implement.» (Too hard)

29. Tuplespace: your rating

Superb»		2		14%
Good»		7		50%
OK»		3		21%
Bad»		2		14%
Catastrophy»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Very short. I think it should"ve been bigger. It was interesting to work with erlang.» (OK)
- I dont know any functional programming but it was nice to see. Better tutorials or something would solve this.» (Bad)

30. Tuplespace: how difficult was it?

Too easy»		1		6%
Easy»		7		46%
OK»		4		26%
Hard»		1		6%
Too hard»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- We finished this lab in around two hours. Compared to how much time we spent on the pub there is a huge difference.» (Too easy)
- One good thing about that it took ~3-4 hours to write is that many students have alot going on this close to the exams.» (Easy)
- Very little code was needed . The problem was understanding Erlang, syntax and why the compiler didn"t scream but the program crashrd. This is a flaw since Erlang i untyped.» (Easy)
- although we underestimated it slightly since we finished our first almost complete version in under an hour (with no previous erlang knowledge). this resulted in having small bugs that we had to fix and refix a couple of times. a nice introduction to another powerful functional language.» (Easy)
- quite easy once we got message passing into out heads.» (Easy)
- nice to have something a bit shorter after the quite large pub-lab.» (OK)
- Due to the functional programming AND the new concept to concurrent programming.» (Too hard)

* obligatoriska frågor