The course assignments are good for learning the material, however many assignments (especially toward the end) have very unclear and confusing requirements.

It gives you the basics, but iI didn't like how it was structured.

No labs, only questions and peer review and the lessons were boring

Course is simple and to the point.

I believe automated assignments will help improve the rigor and remove variability in scoring.

Em alguns momentos o curso é muito superficial, vale a pena procurar sempre mais material depois da aula.

A bit messy, some examples do not work because of typos, explanations could be much clearer honestly

Me gustaría que tuviera más ejercicios con código y quizas clases más dinámicas

Instructor does not explain terms completely, examples were very limited.

More examples can be added in the videos illustrating basic operations.

Completely theoretical course. Only assignments are coding practical.

Too much water, a common blah blah blah blah course for housewives

Content reasonably good. Some errors in quizes and assignments.

Too simple for intermediate developers (targetted profile)

2 times received incorrect grades from other students.

Sweet and simple introduction to the GoLang.

The grading systems is somehow inefficient.

It's basic, I expected to cover more stuff

This course is a little too basic & slow.

Very basic, need more hands on examples.

The course is well done, but too easy

To many coding errors on the slides！

Assignments are super weird

Too basic.

...

Sloppy and not an intermediate course.

Bugs in quizzes, which haven't been fixed in 2+ years. Errors in the videos, sloppy assignment descriptions, and so on.

The course says it aims at intermediate programmers, and then proceeds to still explain almost every single basic programming concept.

The assignments are peer reviewed, and it barely adds value except seeing someone else's code. The review criteria are very basic, and should just have been automated. The assignments are decent practice, and are open enough to at least encourage you to do some research. However, they can be frustrating if you follow the assignment instructions to the letter, as one of the examples contains spaces and is not parseable using the tools that are given in the lectures. I don't think the lecturer tested this, and he certainly didn't update anything based on all the forum feedback.

There are some positives. The lecturer is pleasant to listen to, and the content is spread out bite size.

I was underwhelmed by this course, and will not be taking the two follow-up courses in the series. The instructor seems like a pleasant fellow, but the lectures are more-or-less useless. For example, you need to use Scanner to get proper input, but that isn't even taught at all--leaving it up your own Google-foo capabilities. The assignments are confusingly worded and open to interpretation, which I feel like puts the "peer reviewers" (you and me) in an awkward position. Go itself has also changed over the last 4 years, so certain things that are lectured on are now deprecated. I'd recommend finding another means of learning Go.