My only complaint is the quality of the slides shown during the lessons, e. g. bullet points are not always appropriate :-)

The course provides good information, but I would not say it was the best-designed. The lectures were informative and the programming assignments were challenging, but I wouldn't say the really related to each other as much as I'd like. I would think that the important thing for C programmers moving to C++ would be to learn the exact syntax for how things are done in C++. At times this was lacking. The flip side was I didn't feel that the extended explanations of basic CS algorithms such as Minimum Spanning Tree and Shortest Path was necessary. I knew those algorithms earlier.

But my biggest complaint was the basic inattention. I felt like the course was on auto pilot. At one point a submission of mine was returned. I asked the forum for some kind of assistance or explanation from a mentor and no reply was given. I re-did the assignment and it was accepted but there was still little comment. And at the end of the course, my final assignment was only checked by two graders instead of three.

Was any human actually supervising things? I saw no evidence. Discouraging.

On the whole the least impressive of the four courses I've taken so far using Coursera. Which is a shame b/c it's arguably the most important to me.

Do this course for the assignments and to have something that keeps you on schedule. But be prepared to do your own research on topics.

The professor goes off on pointless tangents forever. C is also supposed to be a prerequisite but then he ends also ends up explaining basic C (prefixing his explanation with you should know this). He then goes into these very specific, typical academic-style examples that he spends time talking about them (again pointless). And then very little time is left to explain the actual new C++ stuff, and he explains it assuming you kind-of know what he's talking about. So you'll have to stop the video and look up the topic online.

I thought at first according to the title of this course, that it should be an intro for c programmers. But it is more like a brush-up for already c++ programmers. Be ready to take some other course or reading parallel. Otherwise the homeworks are absolutely interesting and suitable for new-comer. It would be better if more videos with more details could be made.

It accomplishes the main goal: help with the leap from C to C++, but:

- It's damn slow. I had to use the 1.5x or 2x speed all the time, and I'm not native English.- The format of the slides is really ugly (e.g., those bullet points in the code)- No lecture notes are provided- The references are to his (expensive) books instead- No source code of examples is provided either- Graph theory is interesting, but out of scope. Waste of time for those who already know it are not interested in and just want to learn C++. It would be better to provide references for optional reading or reviewing.

The course presents the topics in a non-linear manner. It should be called "Learning graphs with C++"

The course content is good. But it needs some polishing...

Major comment:

The assignment submission/review process should be improved. Grading system is not clearly defined at the time of submission. Some grading question are inherently subjective "Is the code at least somewhat efficient?". But even for inherently objective questions "Is the code correct?" (as does it give the correct answer" the staff does not provide the correct answer... I think the staff should create some automated review for what is objective: does the code compile? does it yield the correct answer? is it efficient enough? (Just like many other courses on Coursera) And only when it passes the automatic review, use peer grading for coding style. Finally there a lot of confusion with the deadlines.

Minor comments:

Lucky Coursera has an option to play twice faster! Not that the content is too easy, but the talking ... pace ... is ... hum... very ... ... slow. Also how come for a programming course the slides with code are so poorly formated???

This was more of a "Learn Dijkstra's Algorithm using C++" rather than a "Learn C++" class. I felt like the lectures were more focused on algorithms (Dijkstra's, graph theory, etc) rather than learning about the features available in C++ and when to use them. Additionally, the homeworks were pretty lopsided, with some weeks being very lightweight and others being very intensive.

Too much focus on implementing Graph algorithms and too little about actually learning C++. The homework assignments time allocation (2 * 2 hours) is by far not enough to be able to complete the assignments.

good course but trainer doesnt go in deep

Not that detail.

i must admit that i thought i would gain some more basic knowledge on c++

some namespace discussions , oop , special pointers etc.

the exercises were hard but... no real grasp of the c++ advantages.

i don't think i'll enroll to part B at this moment but im sure am encouraged to keep on learning this language also because of this course, and that's the reason for the third star i gave.

Do not need C understanding to finish that course, Professor tries basically to scare everyone, but you can do that course with no programming background (you WILL struggle a bit) and easily if you have any programming background. Not much C++ learning, mostly Algos. HUGE amounts of mistakes, there is no thorough errata, you have to guess what the hell is happening and what is correct.

The video sessions are nice and very informative. However, the examples in the videos are a "toy" compared to the assignment of implementing a Monte Carlo simulation for Dijkstra's algo. The directions in the description of the assignment are very poorly written and the specs are blurry and difficult to clarify by yourself. The MST assignment is much easier, but still the directions are not well prepared.

- Assumptions about the student are not clear, before starting the course.

Instructor examples are not practical in all contexts.

Jump to dijkstra in very second week, without clarity on major C++ concepts and examples, is too much an expectation from the student switching from C to C++ for the first time.

Confusion with deadline for assignments.

too many lectures during later week courses, as if the effort is to crunch everything in that week and complete the course.

If its spaced properly with examples and problems over few more weeks, it would help.

Lots of overlap in the videos, not a lot of information on C++ features, too few hands-on activities with the features taught.

The instructor is way too boring. I've tried hard to watch these lectures at least thrice but I loose interest after a while. There's a lack of energy and no connection with the audience.

I gave this course two star for taking my responsibility. The course is bad designed. The homework has less clue and you may only find 50% or less related knowledge from the lectures. The final quiz is ridiculous (too many questions about number calculation and I cannot believe there are questions like what did D. Ritchie B. Stroustrup E. Dijkstra L. Euler do or invent?!!!). It seems that the professor or his assistant did not put too much effort into providing this course. Though I learned something from it and it pushed me to learn several c++ skills, in a google searching way.

The instructor speaks too slow. Teaching concepts that are not valid anymore. e.g. prefer inline over function call, const vs #define, declaring variable anywhere in the code etc...

The topics are too small and too much time is devoted to them.

Very poorly designed course material. Everything has been split up.

Very superficial. I found that I know c++ to a limited extent, and that for practical uses I must learn a significant amount of information from other sources. In short, this course is an introduction but does not give you enough tools to call yourself a c++ programmer.

no Chinese subtitles and it is really hard for me to figure all the English subtitles and knowledge. I feel that upset concerning no Chinese translation and I think it should be improved sooner or later. or Chinese learners like me would not learn as much as students who have English as their mother languages.

Not organized well.

Very low effort put in designing the course. Lecture content is not useful for the most part. Assignments are peer-reviewed instead of designing test-cases.

Very Boring!!