It is a good introduction. But there are some minor mistakes in the presentation and the assignments some times are ambiguous, requiring us to use features of the language that have not been taught yet like buffered IO.

This is a good course if you already know how to program, especially C or Python.

If you like to make your own research and not to be contained all content within the course, you will find it challenging and enjoyable.

The course is quite short and informative, and quite fast-paced because of it. This is good. The downside is that in some of course tasks the description is quite misleading and there is no feedback from the creators.

This is a solid overview of Golang. I would recommend doing this alongside personal projects or other books. The assignments don't offer the complexity to really get into why one would use Go over any other language.

I'm happy I took this course. It was a bit basic and not too much philosophy. This is both good and bad. But, I did learn some things. I'm continuing with the other two courses in the golang series.

Peer review of assignments may be slow and not consistent. Reviewers also do not leave meaningful feedback. It would be much better to make automatic check of programming assignments.

The course is nice, but assignments can only be passed by being reviewed by unqualified peers. That's why I quit. Just implement some tests to evaluate student assignments.

The instructor is great! The course was a bit too basic in my opinion, and even though it targets experienced developers, some basic concepts were explained for too long.

Some of the assignment instructions were unclear. The one that people were most confused about was read.go, but there were others, as I could see from the discussions.

Ok general introduction, some of the code was hard to follow along with because it wouldn't compile as typed, which was a bit confusing, but eventually figured it out.

Current version of Golang is 1.13. The section about project structure and workspace should be updated because now we can use Go module to manage source and packages.

Very good course to getting started with Go. Easy to understand and good assignments for the beginning. Peer-grading the assignments is a point which i don't like.

Would be nice if there were some demo code in *files* specifically that we could download and run? That might be helpful since all demo code given were in snippets.

The course as a beginner will be confused. If you don't have Prior Programming experience then it will be hard to understand the course. Otherwise a Great course.

I think you should explain more about how to code with examples, I didn't have a problem because I have a lot of experience but the new developers will have it.

As a experienced developer wanting to delve into Go, I found the content great. If the assignment descriptions were less ambiguous, this would be a 5 star.

Good, but I had to learn from other resources how to manage my source files, packages and go modules, it would've been nice to have this in the course

Great Course, really enjoyed the lectures! I think the assignments may need to reviewed and made slightly more detailed as there are some ambiguities.

It was a good course but I found out that at one place, syntax was wrong and for complete code I was forced to look up on the internet many times.

Needs updating. Should point to the Go Language's stdlib documentation. I liked how it kind of let you discover how to write the assignments.

Course is good. Peer reviews aren't great. You could have a bot do what other students do. I'd prefer someone experienced to mark my work.

サンプルコードで結構大事なところを間違っていたりして、全体的に作り込みは甘い印象。

単純なプログラミング課題なのにピアレビューの形式を採用しているのはマイナス。

イラつくところもあるがGo言語の基本は学べる。

Go言語と直接関係のないビデオは、興味が無ければ飛ばすと良いだろう。

Fast introudction to the basics of GO. The instructions for the assigments are at times very vauge in terms of what is being requested.

The course was really helpful the only thing is it would be great to cover how to take inputs from the user in various formats.

Peer reviews are sometimes incorrect. One should have an option to get it reviewed again or challenge the already done review.