･
Reviews 2
･
Average rating 5.0
The lecture content was good, and I was impressed by how you drew diagrams to help us understand during Q&A sessions! Thank you for such an excellent lecture. However, it's regrettable that students expend unnecessary energy because the lectures are not conducted via live coding. The reasons for the energy expenditure due to the lack of live coding, which I felt while watching the lectures, are as follows: 1. Unexpected code omissions in PPTs or materials. If it were live coding, the IDE would have caught errors, preventing issues. 2. While you showed methods changing mid-lecture, I was curious how constructors changed and tried to follow along with the code, but the provided code is the completed version at the end of each session, so the code differs. 3. Details on dividing code into packages were omitted and only present in the completed code. I'm unsure about the perspective of students who only understand by observing, but for those typing code along with the lecture, these points were inconvenient. While it's fine for review in multiple sessions, it was regrettable that energy was consumed beyond simply understanding the lecture. In short, it felt more like reading a good book than leveraging the benefits of a VOD lecture. However, since the lecture content itself was excellent, I thank the instructor for providing such a great lecture.
Hello Kim Cheol-jun. Thank you for your kind review. It was very difficult to create each lecture material, so thank you for evaluating it highly. 🙂 After teaching for a long time, I've come to realize that each student has diverse preferences. Some prefer offline lectures, others prefer online lectures, and some prefer a lecture-based style instead of live coding. Therefore, it's important for students to choose the appropriate lecture according to their personal preferences, and instructors have to deliberate between different preferences and choosing a suitable format for the lecture. The core of object-oriented design principles is not the code itself, but rather to convey the criteria by which developers think at every moment and how they make trade-offs. And design is not about a single class or a single method, but rather about the distribution of responsibilities and management of dependencies across one or more classes. The problem with live coding here is that it limits students' view to only one class or one method at any given time. Therefore, to discuss design, it is much more useful to visually demonstrate the changes and relationships across multiple classes whenever possible. The more classes that are modified together, the greater the energy required to grasp the overall structure and understand how each class is affected by code changes along the way, which is far more significant than the unnecessary energy consumption caused by not doing live coding, as mentioned in your review. Therefore, you can consider that the lecture was structured in a way that minimizes the energy students need to understand the flow of design. I chose the current method because this advantage far outweighs the disadvantage you mentioned. 🙂 As I mentioned before, everyone has different preferences, and perhaps in your case, you are accustomed to and prefer lectures that proceed with live coding from beginning to end. While my lectures, like the Object - Basic Edition, may include live coding, if the topic is design, the plan is to center on the current format and add live coding. Thank you for your valuable feedback on the lecture method. I will continue to think about how to create better lectures. Even if the current method doesn't perfectly match your learning style, I believe the design principles themselves will definitely be helpful. If you are more accustomed to live coding, it might be a good idea to supplement it by taking such lectures as well. Have a happy start to your week and may your days always be filled with growth!
