Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!larry From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: net.cse Subject: Re: working programs Message-ID: <873@kitty.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 14:13:27 EST Article-I.D.: kitty.873 Posted: Fri Mar 14 14:13:27 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 01:52:56 EST References: <9431@ritcv.UUCP> Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 28 Keywords: ripoff ?? Summary: No compile, no function - no grade! In article <9431@ritcv.UUCP>, jxs7451@ritcv.UUCP writes: > This article has to do with working programs in CS courses. > > For a program that does not compile, and has good style, i have seen people > get 65 %, and with compilation get 75%. Of course the program turned in > must be reasonably long, and look like it might do something close to what > was assigned. > > To me this doesn't seem right, i mean that the program should be atleast > able to compile, and start to do something. Obviously many people are > not going to get to all of the special cases, or maybe skip a part, but > students were just going to the lab and typing for 5 hours to get a reasonable > length thing and hand it in with good style, and pass(with a D). > > Any opinions about this out there? By gum, if you're taking a CS course, an examination program better not only compile, but show some damn good function! What have you learned if all you can do is write non-functional "stylized" lines of code that will not even (ohmygod!) compile? There is no excuse for someone who is so ignorant, lazy and/or sloppy that a program will not compile. ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==