CST 338 Week 3

Who did you work with? 

I worked with Saria Kabbour, Gary Kuepper, and  Rahim Siddi.

What improvements would you make to your code/what was suggested? 

I would like to try and make my code more efficient. I went for a brute force approach and used nested for loops and I agree that it would be a nice challenge to try to avoid that when I have more time. 

Which unit tests were the hardest to pass?

I struggle the most with the display method. Getting the data wasn't that bad, but I got really hung up on the formatting. It took me an unreasonably long time to get that right. I tried to just go quick and manually append spaces before I just used .format and that was way easier and what I should have done from the start.

How do the existing tests function and could they be improved? 

The existing tests seems to function based on the known contents of the text files. The known values are entered as static numbers and then checked against the output of the program.

How would you change the unit tests? 

Well, I was told that magic numbers are a no-no, but then I was also told as you say and not as you do.

What did you struggle with?

I struggled trying to implement a hashmap. I initially tried avoiding nested loops and using a hashmap in the program, but I ran into a lot of issues and eventually just went with a brute force approach with the thought that a working inefficient program is better than the efficient one that doesn't run.
 
What did one of your teammates struggle with?

One of my teammates struggled with the debug method. They thought they were running into a error based on the output of the test cases and so continued to redo their work, but ended up discovering that what they were seeing was the expected output.

What are you most proud of on your submission for HW1? 

I am happy that it runs and is easy to follow for others, I just wish I had been able to build it using single loops.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CST 334 Week 4

     This week in our course, we focused on memory virtualization and memory management. In our lab, we concentrated on FIFO (First-In-First-Out), a page replacement strategy that uses a queue to manage page entries.      In FIFO, pages are loaded into memory and placed in a queue. When a page needs to be replaced, the oldest page in the queue is evicted. This approach can lead to inefficient page replacement because even if a page has been recently used, it will still be evicted if it has been in memory the longest.      In contrast, LRU (Least Recently Used) tracks the usage history of pages. LRU replaces the page that hasn't been used for the longest period of time. Because it takes into account the actual usage patterns of pages, LRU typically provides better performance, whereas FIFO only considers the order in which pages were loaded into memory.
Read more

CST363 Week 1

1. Relational database tables and spreadsheets look similar with both having rows and columns.  What are some important differences between the two?   Relational databases and spreadsheets might look similar because they both have rows and columns, but they are quite different in how they manage data. Databases can handle lots of data and keep it organized using rules like unique IDs and links between different tables. They’re built to deal with many users working at the same time and can keep track of complex relationships between data. Spreadsheets are great for smaller tasks and simpler data, but they can get messy with a lot of information and don’t handle multiple users very well. They also don’t have the same level of data protection or advanced searching features that databases offer.   2. Installing and configuration a database and learning how to use it is more complicated that just reading and writing data to a file.  What are some important reasons tha...
Read more

CST 334 Week 7

     This week, we covered topics including I/O devices, disk drives, files and directories, file systems, and RAIDs. RAID is a storage technology that combines multiple physical disks into one logical unit to enhance performance, data redundancy, or both. RAID 1, also known as mirroring, duplicates data across two or more disks, ensuring that if one disk fails, the data remains intact on the other. This provides high data reliability but requires twice the storage capacity. RAID 4, on the other hand, uses a dedicated disk for parity, with parity information calculated using XOR, and distributed across the array. This parity allows for data recovery in the event of a disk failure. While RAID 4 offers better storage efficiency than RAID 1, it may suffer from performance bottlenecks, as the parity calculations are handled by a single disk.
Read more