I think it would have been more convinient if the coding assigntments were graded automatically.

I like the instructor, and the material was certainly worthwhile, but I do have some constructive criticism. 1. There were too many typos in the lecture slides. Spending my time debugging the professor's code strikes me as counterproductive. 2. There are a lot of things you have to look up on your own in order to complete the assignments. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the instructor could be clear about this at the outset. 3. The whole peer-grading scheme is ridiculous. If I went to my local university, took a course, and the professor said "you all have to grade each others' assignments," I'd be righteously upset about this. I don't see why the Coursera platform is inherently that much different so as to justify this absurd practice. Why should I trust that the other students are equipped and responsible enough to grade anything, particularly something they're learning at the same time as me?

Not very in depth study course about Golang but still good

The instruction of some of the tasks could have been more clear and less ambiguous (e.g a String of 20 characters on Week 4 task).

I am writing this after having actually completed all three courses in this series. I would rate all of them well. The instructor is fine for me, but there is an occasional error in his slides. But the selection of material was good and the tests and homework were also fine.

The one thing that was disappointing to me is the peer to peer grading format of the course programming exercises. Apparently there are not a large number of students taking these courses and so I sometimes had to wait days to get feedback and grades for my assignments. I actually finished the 3rd course before I had the last programming assignment from the 2nd course graded.

It was annoying enough that I might well shy away from taking courses with peer grading in the future.

On balance, though I have to say I enjoyed all three of these courses and I definitely leave them behind a better Go programmer than I was before.

Very shallow. Only the bare basics are covered. Some embarrassing errors in the code presented in the lectures.

Nice as an intro for a complete novice, who has just bare minimum programming experience. Otherwise - for a paid course - doesn't worth the time nor the money.

The material and pace are good. My only complaint is with the peer review grading system. I've taken other courses (Odersky's Scala series) where grading is automated by unit tests. Given Golang's high reliance on testing in practice, that would seem to be a much better approach here.

assignment requirement is not clear.there is wrong syntax in video.

Interesting Course for anyone interested by Go programming, but Course is really targetted at beginner programmers

I would not recommend this course. It has many syntax errors. Assessments often rely on a subjects which are not explained yet. Assessments have misleading descriptions. Does not worth your money.

More Lab work would have been useful.

Too much typos in the codes, misleading in some cases

Should be more indepth. Standard library which were missed out and are important should be introduced like reflection, time, net, io, etc and that too in detail. I think concepts introduced must be strengthened using real world scenarios as well. Please introduce more concepts like profiling, memory management web development as part of this specialization via new courses.

Negatives:

Not an intermediate course, more like a beginner course for me. Too much background info which is not go related eg concurrency/parallelism explaination

Examples are not good: bad variable and function names, non-practical or even confusing/misleading

Positives:

Important topics are covered, explainations are ok (but could be better)

Very, very basic. They say the course is for people with knows other programming languages, but the expected knowledge is very low. For example, a very long explanation about variable scope is for absolute beginners. If you are proficient in any other language like C, C# or Java, you have listened to this explanation N-times in your life and the course is probably too slow paced for you.

Excellent content, short introduction to go

great intro!

Not enough direction for assignments. I believe there is ambiguity and it leaves peers to grade assignments incorrectly. For example, the 1st assignment says to show proof of compilation and that the program submission runs successfully. I did both in one-step using 'go run filename.go' and provided the screenshot, yet I had to re-submit my assignment.

I learnt a lot of the intricate basics that i most definitely would have overlooked.

Professor is not active on forums and there are some mistakes in slides. The assignments are way too easy but good enough to get a hands on the language. They do make you look around on the internet for syntax. I'm pleased with the course.

The peer review was a bummer for me; I don't feel like I should pay for a course and have to grade others assignments. If I want to become a TF / TA, much different story.

The final assignment was worded poorly and left some (much) to the implementor's interpretation; a bit uncomfortable.

2.5 stars

Completely theoretical course. Only assignments are coding practical.

concise and short and engaging. look for the course 4 !!

All the assignments in the course are interesting and explanation in the videos are straight to the point which eliminates some sort of confusion for beginners. Overall great and I would recommend the course for anyone to get started.

nice