Project P4 ratings about 75 responses 28 1P3.4HoursAlone: 1 or less hours 13 1P3.4HoursAlone: 2 hours 8 1P3.4HoursAlone: 3 hours 9 1P3.4HoursAlone: 4 hours 4 1P3.4HoursAlone: 5 hours 5 1P3.4HoursAlone: 6 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 7 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 8 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 9 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 11 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 12 hours 1 1P3.4HoursAlone: 18-20 hours 27 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 26 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 1 or less hours 5 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 2 hours 6 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 3 hours 3 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 4 hours 6 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 5 hours 1 1P3.4HoursWithPartner: 8 hours 4 1 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 25 2 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 5 3 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 11 4 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 4 5 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 9 6 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 6 7 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 2 8 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 2 9 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 1 11 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 2 12 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 1 16 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 1 20 hours on P3.4 alone plus with partner before P3 due date 14 1P4HoursAlone: 1 or less hours 6 1P4HoursAlone: 2 hours 8 1P4HoursAlone: 3 hours 6 1P4HoursAlone: 4 hours 10 1P4HoursAlone: 5 hours 6 1P4HoursAlone: 6 hours 5 1P4HoursAlone: 7 hours 7 1P4HoursAlone: 8 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 9 hours 6 1P4HoursAlone: 10 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 11 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 12 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 14 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 15-17 hours 1 1P4HoursAlone: 18-20 hours 26 1P4HoursWithPartner: 10 1P4HoursWithPartner: 1 or less hours 8 1P4HoursWithPartner: 2 hours 4 1P4HoursWithPartner: 3 hours 8 1P4HoursWithPartner: 4 hours 6 1P4HoursWithPartner: 5 hours 4 1P4HoursWithPartner: 6 hours 2 1P4HoursWithPartner: 8 hours 1 1P4HoursWithPartner: 9 hours 2 1P4HoursWithPartner: 10 hours 2 1P4HoursWithPartner: 15-17 hours 1 1P4HoursWithPartner: 18-20 hours 2 1 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 3 2 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 6 3 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 8 4 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 5 5 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 7 6 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 6 7 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 12 8 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 4 9 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 5 10 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 3 11 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 1 12 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 2 13 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 2 14 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 3 16 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 1 17 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 2 18 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 1 22 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 1 36 hours on P4 alone plus with partner after P3 due date 2 2KnowAnswerSoFar-Previous: 1) very bad 5 2KnowAnswerSoFar-Previous: 2) bad 43 2KnowAnswerSoFar-Previous: 3) ok 20 2KnowAnswerSoFar-Previous: 4) good 4 2KnowAnswerSoFar-Previous: 5) very good 3 2LearnAnswerSoFar-Previous: 1) very bad 5 2LearnAnswerSoFar-Previous: 2) bad 41 2LearnAnswerSoFar-Previous: 3) ok 21 2LearnAnswerSoFar-Previous: 4) good 4 2LearnAnswerSoFar-Previous: 5) very good 6 3KnowInvariants: 1) very bad 13 3KnowInvariants: 2) bad 40 3KnowInvariants: 3) ok 12 3KnowInvariants: 4) good 3 3KnowInvariants: 5) very good 2 3LearnInvariants: 1) very bad 17 3LearnInvariants: 2) bad 42 3LearnInvariants: 3) ok 13 3LearnInvariants: 4) good 2 4KnowFunctions-and-Scripts: 1) very bad 2 4KnowFunctions-and-Scripts: 2) bad 32 4KnowFunctions-and-Scripts: 3) ok 25 4KnowFunctions-and-Scripts: 4) good 13 4KnowFunctions-and-Scripts: 5) very good 3 4LearnFunctions-and-Scripts: 2) bad 26 4LearnFunctions-and-Scripts: 3) ok 28 4LearnFunctions-and-Scripts: 4) good 16 4LearnFunctions-and-Scripts: 5) very good 3 5KnowIntrospection: 1) very bad 9 5KnowIntrospection: 2) bad 36 5KnowIntrospection: 3) ok 22 5KnowIntrospection: 4) good 4 5KnowIntrospection: 5) very good 2 5LearnIntrospection: 1) very bad 7 5LearnIntrospection: 2) bad 41 5LearnIntrospection: 3) ok 20 5LearnIntrospection: 4) good 4 5LearnIntrospection: 5) very good 2 6ExPrepare: 1) very bad 22 6ExPrepare: 2) bad 38 6ExPrepare: 3) ok 11 6ExPrepare: 4) good 1 6ExPrepare: 5) very good 4 6LecPrepare: 1) very bad 10 6LecPrepare: 2) bad 41 6LecPrepare: 3) ok 17 6LecPrepare: 4) good 2 6LecPrepare: 5) very good 4 6SecPrepare: 1) very bad 10 6SecPrepare: 2) bad 26 6SecPrepare: 3) ok 21 6SecPrepare: 4) good 13 6SecPrepare: 5) very good 1 8Overall: 1) very bad 5 8Overall: 2) bad 36 8Overall: 3) ok 31 8Overall: 4) good 1 8Overall: 5) very good ---- q> Thanks for lightening up the work load. ---- q> Mulpoly and divpoly were extremely difficult. ---- q> I did not really understand what we were supposed to do for testpoly q> so it took me a long time to go through that and see what you were q> asking..so I think it is a good idea that you are asking us to q> rewrite the write up for that question. Also, I thought number one q> was a little tough. I think I am still having trouble with these q> loop inv sort of things. ---- q> This project seemed very short at first, but it actually turned out q> to be the perfect length. It was challenging, but not impossible. q> The best part about this was that we had almost 2 weeks to complete q> the entire thing. This made the process much less stressful and q> frustrating. Also, the TA's were very helpful during office hours. ---- q> too much... ---- q> overall, the project wasn't bad and the length of the project was q> really nice. The problems were not that hard to solve and we were q> given fairly decent examples to give us an idea as to how to approach q> the project ---- q> Honestly, this was a good length for a project...2 parts...not 5. This q> allowed me to think about the parts more in depth rather than worry q> about just finishing it. ---- q> i did most of the project during project 3. i actually finished it q> for project 3, the polynomial problem. at the time i didn't htink q> it was that hard. it was later when newgroup discussions turned onto q> $divpoly$ when i realized i had a few subtle mistakes, and i rewrote q> it. 4.1 was a good question i thought. i had writtened the whole q> program first using an unbound vector, and it worked, and i uploaded q> it. then i started from scratch using a constant memory condition, q> using some of the code outlined in the newsgroups for a different q> problem, and handling input... all in all i think it was definately q> a good project, i didn't spend a hell of a lot of time on it, like q> in project 3. this is about the right length for a project. ---- q> The description of $testoply$ was very poor, if the posted solution q> was what you wanted. I didn't think we had to return messages that q> the solutions didn't match. I thought we just had to display both q> solutions for the person running $testpoly$ to see. ---- q> I found the directions to some of the separate functions were a bit q> vague, especially the testpoly function. I also believe that many q> of the techniques for debugging taught in lecture today, 3/8, would q> have been very useful in improving/error checking the programs. ---- q> At least it was shorter then the others. It was still very difficult q> though. The assignment was a bit vague, if not for the newsgroup, I q> would have done 4.1 completely wrong. Even so, I did a lot of work q> for nothing due to the un-clear nature of the assignment. ---- q> I know the last project was a little long, but this one was q> ridiculously short. It was, however, much better than the others in q> terms of not requiring functions we had not heard of yet. ---- q> I am still rather confused about the exact content of the loop q> invariant... some sources define it by any variable that retains q> one value throughout the loop; others say that the invariant should q> describe the workings of the loop itself. every loop should have a comment explaining what it does. it is often useful to include a loop invariant as part of this comment. technically, a loop invariant is any condition that is true whenever the loop guard is tested. in practice, this often means the loop invariant is simply a clear definition of what the variables are. q> Also, exercises weren't of any value, since most of them did not q> relate to the project at all. In fact, exercises covered mainly q> peripheral stuff... q> q> Otherwise, everything else about the project was somewhat helpful. ---- q> This was a good project, challenging and yet not extremely time q> consuming. I learned a lot from working on this project. ---- q> I thought Project 4.1 much more a pain than 4.2!!! ---- q> it was too easy.. ---- q> I didn't feel well prepared for this project from lecture. I think q> I had a hard time getting what I knew was happening into Matlab. I q> understood the algorithm of what needed to be done in the functions, q> but the code was the problem. I feel that more correlation of what is q> going on in lecture and what we need for the project would make things q> more understandable. Also go over how to do things needed for the q> project early enough so we have enough time to prepare for the project. ---- q> The project load and the time that I spent on it was much more q> reasonable than the last project. The wording in parts of the project q> itself was confusing, but definitely not impossible. ---- q> This project was much more reasonable than the last one. My partner q> and I were able to do most of it on our own and I feel I learned this q> material much better than the other material. ---- q> The problem we did in lecture (leftmost mode) was trivial in relation q> to part1 of the project. Also, in section Tibor Janosi went over q> some new method of tracing that we've never seen before as well as q> 'binary search,' which was of NO relevance whatsoever to the project. q> I don't know how we could've prepared better though because I admit q> programming seems to be more of a talent than something teachable, q> but that's just my opinion. ---- q> This project wasn't as bad since there weren't as many questions, q> but the first question was pretty difficult to get right. ---- q> Mike Singer gives really good hints on exercises without divulging q> too much of the answer. It was a worthwhile project in the end, even q> though it was painful in the process. ---- q> A good project. I liked it. ---- q> Concerning the grading of the projects, I believe the fact that we q> are judged in terms of how pretty the code looks like and not how q> well it works and how efficient or concise it is is stupid. ---- q> managed to finish the polynomial part as part of project 3, so project q> 4 wasn't that bad. ---- q> This project was much better, than p3. I thought it was one of the q> least time consuming projects, but this is becasue I already did the q> polynomials in project 3. ---- q> The length of the project was more reasonable this time, however, q> my partner and I still found it very challenging. Thankfully Mike q> Singer was helpful and took time to look over our progress and give q> us suggestions and help us understand the questions and the direction q> to go in. Starting early is key ---- q> I wish P4.2.testpoly had been explained more clearly. I didn't quite q> understand what form you wanted the answer in. Eitherway, the syntax q> errors in divpoly kept me up, I never even got to testpoly. ---- q> it was unclear as to what exactly was required with the loop q> invariants. professor yan said in lecture, i think, the loop invariant q> could simply explain what the loop did, but every example of loop q> invariants lists every value calculated in the loop. ---- q> I feel as though the project did not best suit the beginners' q> level. Some of the functions and scripts that were asked for definitely q> surpassed the level of beginner programming knowledge. ---- q> once again, lecture did little to help with the project. but still q> it was a fun one to do. the intricacy of the divpoly function was a q> challenge but interesting to discover how short the final code needed q> to be. i continue to be lost as to what a loop invariant is... ---- q> i think the work load could be a little lighter. Two exercises and q> one project in one week is a little much. I think the exercise work q> is a little to much like "busy work" too. I think you should try to q> focus more on making the work have more concrete relations to what q> we're doing in class. ---- q> P4 was a much better and less stressing project, just the right length q> and degree of difficulty. keep up the good work! ---- q> I am still confused about unbounded/bounded vectors. q> q> I thought this project was definitely more reasonable (in length and q> in general) but the polynomial part I thought was really hard. ---- q> I felt unprepared for the project.