Dt228-2 OOP repeats?

Finite

Can you repeat OOP in the summer or must you carry the subject because of continuous assessment?

Any information anybody has about repeating this and how it affects things would be appreciated...

Stench Blossoms

Depends on what you failed.

**Edit**

You need to get 40% overall which includes your CA's and exam marks.

If I remember correctly it's broken down 40 - 60 for CA's and exam.

So if you failed your CA's you need to get 66.6% in the exam to pass.

If you fail the repeat exams you are sometimes allowed to carry over the subject into 3rd year.

I think though, not 100% sure, that if you carry the subject to 3rd year you can't do the work experience section.

Finite

Thanks orla!

Hmmm .. Didn't realise you could fail the CA .. thought it was all one mark at the end .. exam + CA. I thought maybe acing the exam might suffice.

anybody got any idea when the OOP summer repeats are usually held?

Stench Blossoms

Late August - Early September

grimm2005

Finite wrote: »

Hmmm .. Didn't realise you could fail the CA .. thought it was all one mark at the end .. exam + CA. I thought maybe acing the exam might suffice.

Before they modularised the course 4 years ago, you had to get at least 40% in both your CA and exam. But this has since changed and you now simply need 40% overall so if you've failed your CA you can still pass overall if you do well enough on your written exam

Murilloinf

pretty sure, you'll only need the overall mark.

mark renton

grimm2005 wrote: »

Before they modularised the course 4 years ago, you had to get at least 40% in both your CA and exam. But this has since changed and you now simply need 40% overall so if you've failed your CA you can still pass overall if you do well enough on your written exam

Not so for OOP in DT249 - were were specifically told we had to reach 40% in each the CA and Exam in Jan, now I havent heard anyone stating this caught them out, could have been an idle threat - have to say worked on me

Stench Blossoms

john47832 wrote: »

Not so for OOP in DT249 - were were specifically told we had to reach 40% in each the CA and Exam in Jan, now I havent heard anyone stating this caught them out, could have been an idle threat - have to say worked on me

Worked on me as well. I prefer it that way.

I'm brutal when it comes to sitting exams so I hate when someone who's done f'all all year pass by just doing great in the exam.

Sheeps

did you buy a guide to C++ by Paul Kelly because i dont know how you failed OOP if you had that book rofl

Stench Blossoms

Sheeps wrote: »

did you buy a guide to C++ by Paul Kelly because i dont know how you failed OOP if you had that book rofl

You may laugh now but I regulary refer back to my book from time to time.

Great book, great lecturer.

Sheeps

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

You may laugh now but I regulary refer back to my book from time to time.

Great book, great lecturer.

Rofl.

void main()
{
} 

I rest my case.

It's a good book alright, if you want examples of exactly how you should not program or if you're in need of some kindling.

grimm2005

john47832 wrote: »

Not so for OOP in DT249 - were were specifically told we had to reach 40% in each the CA and Exam in Jan, now I havent heard anyone stating this caught them out, could have been an idle threat - have to say worked on me

Well, thats what they told us when we first started. It may differ on a course to course basis or simply what the lecturer decides. If it's any help to the OP, I got 39% in my 2nd yr C++ assignment but passed overall with the exam (granted it was borderline and still probably would have passed me but I know others who had less than that and passed)

Stench Blossoms

Sheeps wrote: »

Rofl.

Go roffel yourself.

Sheeps wrote: »

It's a good book alright, if you want examples of exactly how you should not program

Funny because in the real world people tend to code very similar to how he does in his book.

Your above example of the main with nothing in it is clearly something in the first chapter showing you the basics.

Sheeps

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Funny because in the real world people tend to code very similar to how he does in his book.

ahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Sheeps

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Funny because in the real world people tend to code very similar to how he does in his book.

maybe in pc world

Stench Blossoms

Sheeps wrote: »

maybe in pc world

I can assure you I don't work in PC World.

Now go run and hide behind Conor.

PS. I know who you are Sheeps. I You !

Sheeps

yes hiding behind conor...

Stench Blossoms

I'm gonna forward this thread to PK.

Oh and FYI, none of last years games graduates got a job in their field. So i'll see ya in PC World !!

Sheeps

wait... you shop in pc world?

Stench Blossoms

Sheeps wrote: »

wait... you shop in pc world?

It's the one thing missing from PK's book. "Don't shop in PC World"

Naikon

Any self respecting C programmer uses this book: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

Have had it for three years and it's pretty much my reference for C. If you want to write portable ANSI compliant code, this is your ticket. You will need other books for graphics API's and the like. C has a very small run time library simply because it's expected to run in places where the likes of Java and maybe even C++ may not. Embedded stuff will be using C for a very long time to come.

By the way, the correct definition is:

int main(int argc, char **argv)

You should not be writing C if you can't understand that you pass in an int representing the argument count for whitespace deliminated strings along with a pointer to an array of pointers which hold the address of each input argument. You NEED to return an integer value from the main indicating the exit state of main. Your enviroment expects a return value.

So Kids, remember not to write void main(void), your OS will thank you.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/auj/voidmain.shtml

Stench Blossoms

Naikon wrote: »

Any self respecting C programmer uses this book: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

Have had it for three years and it's pretty much my reference for C. If you want to write portable ANSI compliant code, this is your ticket. You will need other books for graphics API's and the like. C has a very small run time library simply because it's expected to run in places where the likes of Java and maybe even C++ may not. Embedded stuff will be using C for a very long time to come.

By the way, the correct definition is:

int main(int argc, char **argv)

You should not be writing C if you can't understand that you pass in an int representing the argument count for whitespace deliminated strings along with a pointer to an array of pointers which hold the address of each input argument. You NEED to return an integer value from the main indicating the exit state of main. Your enviroment expects a return value.

So Kids, remember not to write void main(void), your OS will thank you.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/auj/voidmain.shtml

Thank you for you amazingly put input.

We are talking about C++, not C.

Sheeps

Naikon wrote: »

Any self respecting C programmer uses this book: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

Have had it for three years and it's pretty much my reference for C. If you want to write portable ANSI compliant code, this is your ticket. You will need other books for graphics API's and the like. C has a very small run time library simply because it's expected to run in places where the likes of Java and maybe even C++ may not. Embedded stuff will be using C for a very long time to come.

By the way, the correct definition is:

int main(int argc, char **argv)

You should not be writing C if you can't understand that you pass in an int representing the argument count for whitespace deliminated strings along with a pointer to an array of pointers which hold the address of each input argument. You NEED to return an integer value from the main indicating the exit state of main. Your enviroment expects a return value.

So Kids, remember not to write void main(void), your OS will thank you.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/auj/voidmain.shtml

nah man its

void main(){}

i read it in paul kellys book

Naikon

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Thank you for you amazingly put input.

We are talking about C++, not C.

Fair enough, but you still need to follow the same correct conventions in C++ too. Thats the problem with college lecturing at times, you are shown how to implement a CRUD application, yet not how to write good quality code. You won't get very far if you are just relying on college stuff. I am stunned when I look back on some really old code.

Just because it compiles correctly does not mean it's correct. It riles me to see the use of "puts" and "gets" and not parsing strings in a safe and correct manner in some books. No wonder most courses are moving to insulated/padded enviroments like Java, where the buck is passed to the great fascist JVM Dictator to strictly type check your code. Don't trust the programmers actual intentions.

With great power comes great responsibility and all that...

Sheeps

nerd

Naikon

Fo sho

Ahh now in fairness, theres always somebody nerdier:) I do not not fit the defintion of a nerd. Maybe a "geek" I dunno, but I sure as hell don't have
cokebottle glasses and play dungeon and dragons for a living. From what I can gather, anyone doing a Computer Science course is a potential nerd;)