This is a university degree course which takes enormous effort to complete. But still its beond the programming course range giving you whats not possible to google or learn practical way. Thanks!
Thank you for this exciting course! I did the FP in Scala course a few years ago and decided to do the full certification now. I am looking forward to the next courses in the specialisation.
by Erick H•
Contrasted with the first course, this one isn't nearly as good. The videos were choppy and broken up into strange segments. The assignment had some extremely confusing instructions and I wasted tons of time reading the forum to try and resolve basic things. Don't get me wrong. I did learn some stuff but the overall quality was lacking.
by VICTOR A•
Many of the lectures use concepts that were not introduced before, which is very confusing. On the third week, the lectures are completely disconnected from the assignments. The lectures from the last week feel out of order, but at least the assignment was able to connect everything.
The best thing from this course are the assignments.
by Brian B•
The course in general is not as good as Martin Odersky's first course, but it still has interesting bits to learn about functional programming.
Everything topic feels very disconnected to each other.
Lastly, the last part of the course is specially disorganized. I didn't feel like the assignment captured everthing that was taught.
by Bruno F•
Material in the first few weeks was taught well and went together with the first course in the track.
The latter part of the course was not taught in such great depth and was not examined in the exercises either.
Consider making the first course longer and dedicating the whole of this course to the material in the latter half.
by Mikko S•
I was expecting this course to be more challenging than Functional Programming Principles in Scala but found this one easier in the end. The assignments were ok but I felt like they could have been more challenging and also that they should have tested my understanding of the course contents more thoroughly.
by Alan A•
I have the sensation that this second part is not so well explained as the first one.
Week 3 was confusing. The assignment is not related to the video contents.
Week 4 was confusing too. The mix between Martin and the other guy's videos is weird. Also I expected much more reactive stuff.
by Andy D•
A daily demanding course, which could have benefitted from more time spent in some areas - particular signals. The video explaining a sample Signal implementation was very rushed and provided too little detail on a lot of information that seems to be taken for granted.
by ravi c•
Very hard to follow due to unsequenced lessons. Had a tough time with the exercise QuickCheck because I was not solving the problem. I have devising test cases to verify the solution. Rest of the content was good, but reactive lesson was quite short to start with.
by Jacopo P•
At times, this course looks a patch work of videos without a clear continuity. It is a pity that one week has no assessment at all and the last week mostly on "Futures" does not assess them. Also it would have been nice to have a snapshot on Actors
by Lucas F•
The course needs a reboot. Some parts were merged with other and the whole thing lacks continuity. A few examples were poorly chosen. For instance, signals / reactive concepts would be easier to understand in user interfaces or graphics / games.
by Pedro P•
week 4 course "timely effects" with Erik Meijer videos are very hard o watch, the background and the slides are very distracting. Did not learn much with those videos, I had to resort to other sources to learn about lazy evaluation and futures.
by Luis V•
Good but not less quality that the other courses in the specialization.
The course seems a little messy and with lack of focus, it is obvious that it is the result of cut and paste of other courses... may be to fit with Coursera restrictions??
by Patrik M•
I've enjoyed some lectures. But overall, this course was less educative than the first one in the Scala specialisation. I do appreciate Erik Meijer as a professional and a scientist. But, in my humble oppinion, he is not a great lecturer.
by Juan F O•
The topics are great, the material is not really polished: the lectures are from previous courses and they reorganised material without redoing anything, which is needed in several points. Many explanations could be improved greatly.
by malhar j•
The course was good but not as good/detailed as the first one. Martin did an excellent job as usual though. I felt the course content was interesting but got very dull towards the end. The assignments were not really challenging.
by Saurav G•
Decent course, except in the last week it felt a bit stitched together from parts of a previous course and a new one. The jump in flow seemed abrupt and the relevance of some of the contents (regarding Future's) was not clear.
by Sebastián S C•
I found this course thanks to Lightbend but I was sad to realice that a lot of content from the previous course has been took down. Actors, RxScala or Akka streams are missing and where in some sort present before.
by James T•
Much of the lecture material seemed very chopped-up from previous courses and did not flow well at all. In a couple of cases the assignment had very little relationship with the course material from the same week.
by Lukasz S•
Videos from previuos version of the course Reactive programming in Scala makes this course worse prepared. I had impression that it was made rushed from shredded pieces. Assignements are easier than previous
by Juan S P R•
The lab for the third week was unrelated to the material, and the fourth week is a bunch of videos from the previous course of reactive programming in Scala. Nothing like the first course of Scala
by Viktor K•
Too much of the content is already contained in the courses "Functional Programming Principles in Scala" and "Principles of Reactive Programming". Would be nice to have some new assignments.
by Carlos M d C T•
The quality of the explanations is inferior to the first course.
But I feel I could pass the Assignments without mastery of the topics.
However, would take this course again.
by Evgenii S•
Course is not well formed.
I received full grade for second assignment doing nothing.
It will be great if you attach lectures from Reactive Programming at least as optional
by Viton V•
On the positive side: The content was very interesting.
On the negative side: The course was not particularly well structured. The last week was quite difficult to follow.
by Ivan K•
Last (4th week) is awfully designed, includes a lot of "scratch the surface" material, very bad explanations of futures and background. With authors redesigned 4th week.