Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: working programs
Message-ID: <387@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 00:48:40 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.387
Posted: Wed Mar 19 00:48:40 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 05:46:43 EST
References: <2213@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 22

I seem to be the one who got this notion about grading mostly on style
started.  This is an important misunderstanding which I want to clear up.

This style-heavy grading is really only appropriate for the early courses,
and only when you expect to see most people complete the project.  In any
case, their's an obvious limit to how much style can be worth.  Ideally,
things should come out in this order:

     1) Hopeless cases (bad style and no function)
     2) Good style but non-functional
     3) Functional but ugly
     4) FUnctional and stylish

On some early projects, however, it seems like you need to reverse 2 and 3,
so as to discourage those who are just trying to get by from writing
"baling-wire specials".

As far as grading on functionality is concerned, I am a convert to grading
it hard.  I'll even go further and insist upon the grader supplying test
data.

C. Wingate