Ian Harris
Continue your exploration of the Go programming language as you learn about functions, methods, and interfaces. Topics include the implementation of functions, function types, object–orientation in Go, methods, and class instantiation. As with the first course in this series, you’ll have an opportunity to create your own Go applications so you can practice what you’re learning. Since 1965, the University of California, Irvine has combined the strengths of a major research university with the bounty of an incomparable Southern California location. UCI’s unyielding commitment to rigorous academics, cutting–edge research, and leadership and character development makes the campus a driving force for innovation and discovery that serves our local, national and global communities in many ways.
Instructor Details
Courses : 6
Specification: Functions, Methods, and Interfaces in Go
|
51 reviews for Functions, Methods, and Interfaces in Go
Add a review
| Price | Free |
|---|---|
| Provider | |
| Duration | 11 hours |
| Year | 2018 |
| Level | Intermediate |
| Language | English |
| Certificate | Yes |
| Quizzes | Yes |
FREE
![Go (Golang): The Complete Bootcamp [Updated: December 2019]](https://courses.javacodegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1556312_18c2_8-300x300.jpg)
Michael W –
Great Class! Excellent coverage of basic tools provided by Go
Dang V D –
Great course, good structure
Vsevolod V –
Quizzes and assignments contain mistakes, which make it hard (and in some cases impossible) to make it right.
Armin K –
Way too easy and way too little background information or depth, plus lack of real–world examples and a lot of inaccurate information.
Edward H –
The programming assignment workload is reasonable, but there is little support and discussion to support a newbie programmer. Also I believe a graphic display of user input and the program outputs would be much easier to understand. Reading off the instructions are too open to interpretation. There is also the grading scheme is not fine–grained enough. It could utilized better to provide a more structured approach to a solution. For example, loop (1 mark) use of map ( 1 mark) user of slice ( 1 mark) So there will be 10 chcekpoints to verify and validate. Using 2 points as aggregate scores, did not help to achieve that goal. It penalised students excessively in my opinins.
Robin Z –
Nice follow–up on the first course, wish more focus would have been put on using interfaces
Yuheng C –
A little more typos on the slides …
Serge T –
quite a lot of mistakes in study materials and tests
Flavio S T –
The course is extremely basic, not very complete, and full of errors that are being dragged through multiple months, the errors have been flagged on the forums, and they are never fixed. The grading is made by peer review – which could be a good thing, but the rubric for grading are could be completely automated, and it isn’t.
yichen z –
nice
Sylvain T –
The topic is good, however the videos really have this old–school touch– you know, the very reason you choose to go to Coursera and not back to some class bench. Evaluations would also benefit from a good review, too much frustating inconsistencies for my (and many people on the forums) taste.
Terence S –
There were a few inaccuracies which might be confusing for newcomers to the language. It would be good if the instructor or someone else with editing permissions could take a look at the feedback and act on it.
Alec J –
I’ll say again what I said regarding the first course in this series. The teacher is good, and the material is valuable, but the fact that students have to grade each others’ work is ridiculous, and actually kind of angering, if I’m honest. Why would you trust me to grade someone else’s work, while I’m learning it at the same time they are? Who knows? Maybe I’m an idiot. Even if I’m bright and hard–working, I won’t have the same insight as an instructor would, looking at the same material. This is pedagogically difficult to justify, and I can only believe that it’s meant to shield the instructor from the drudgery of the task.
Justin L –
some homework questions are wrong
Joseph F –
Peer–reviewed assignments are problematic and frustrating. I would never pay for a course that didn’t have a TF/TA or Professor grading the assignments. Students can’t possibly make judgement calls on code; else the code becomes very narrow and cookie–cutter.
David L –
Negatives: Not an intermediate course, more like a beginner course for me. Too much background info which is not go related eg why functions, what are good properties of functions, this is too generic and beginner material 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)
Akashdeep D –
basic but a good intro!
Adel F –
Learned a bit on go syntax and how polymorphism works. Thanks the instructor. Good learning experience overall.
Maxim C –
Still there are errors in the tests
Phil H –
An ok course. Lots of annoying typos in the slides, and the instructor seems to stumble over some of the explanation. In the end, it did teach me the basics of go functions and OO concepts.
Sachin T –
There are obvious errors like “>” instead of “<". The instructor is mentioning something different than what is on the slide. These are admittedly trivial errors but when you are trying to understand complex topic like "Interfaces" these errors make it that much more difficult. It would be helpful to have at least one example of a full program and walk to through step by step. When discussing concrete type and interface type, it would be helpful to have examples on the same slide. I was going to upgrade to fully paid subscription if I understood topic of "Interfaces" well. Unfortunately it did not meet my requirement.
Neeraj –
cool stuff, helped to get a good overview of how go is different but still basically the same as most other languages.
Arif U R K –
well cool stuff and materials which Mr. Ian discussed and presented and the way he explains with examples are pretty awesome and easy to understand. They best part is that you don’t have to worry to code just learn the basics in the lecture like how you will do things and how things work and then you get an assignment which gives you a great way to learn even further by searching and reading other materials as well
EDGAR M M C –
Excelent course, I learnt fundamental topics: methods, functions and interfaces to develop OOP approach application using Go.
Harris P –
It is very helpful.
zillani s –
Nice Presentation, Simple slides & Clear explanation. I really like the way this course is organized, straight to the point no confusion. I feel very fortune to learn and because of this course, I am able to get into a project called barrelman which is a tool for kubernetes deployment.
Alexander B –
An awesome course!
Yogesh M –
Too many errors in the content
Malik A H A –
Well the content of course is excellent but the slides should be more attractive. The usage of go language in industry should also be explained in this specialization which is so for not explained. Overall the instructor is great. Content of course is great.
Jaron W A v G S –
Plain English, easy explanation.
Carlos A C R –
Great course. The only bad is that sometimes the exercises are not very clear.
Ben H –
Good explanation of go syntax and reasons for it.
Emilio H C –
The course is well designed to allow studens to catch up with go features. The graded assestments are great to inmediatly apply what you’ve learned. I enjoyed this course.
Gaurav H –
Course is more theoretical than practical not worthy at all.
Ardavan I –
This course is the only talks and powerpoint slides, there is absolutely no code, monitor screen sharing, etc. The courses talk about fundamentals and computer science stories. The entire specialization focus is less than 50% on the Go language itself. No Go mod, No libraries, No coding… For instance, The professor is about to explain a new thing and suddenly remember forgot to mention something before so he jumps to the missing point and then jumps back to continue. HARD to follow up… The quizzes have many typos/duplicates. That makes you fail! Overall strongly I do NOT suggest to waste your money or time on this specialization on Coursera.
Anh D –
There is problem with answers of quiz but no update until now
Devon E –
Excellent course.
Chauncey G S J –
Assignment 4 was telling us to create each Animal type: Bird, Cow, Snake with a name field of string type, but this was not required. There were other issues with wrong answers on quiz questions as well. The quiz question issues were well documented by other students in the forums.
Nir M –
Informative and useful!
Andreas M –
I just love the way Professor Harris is teaching all these concepts!
Abhishek A –
Very fast paced to quickly learn Go basics.
Kevin J –
An excellent course to learn golang basic.
Aleksandar N –
The course material is good, and the lecturer as well. But there are too many technical mistakes within the course. Also, there is a need to beg for someone to review your work.
Camilo M –
Very good course!
Heiko H –
A broken assigment for more then 1 mon and no one likes to fix this. All assigments are very hard to understand.
Enrico D –
Superior professor, I love him!
Komal K S –
The assignments are helpful to digest the concepts of Go.
Werner B –
Very good. Highly relevant information, some tricky exercises. Ian is an excellent teacher! I love his hardware background and the nudges to software developers to finally write optimized code. I will now take the IoT the course. Please continue and create new courses
Stanley D –
Very well prepared contents
Daniel R G –
The best teacher ever
Ramy M –
I’ve been coding for 7 years now, and I still find the basics explained in this course to be very useful and refreshing. And I really learned a good amount of details about Go.