I think that would give valuable insights! I volunteer to contact them, if we all vote for this.

No other preparation is needed!

Go over them and improve.

Björn seems to need help to convert at

• https://github.com/UPPMAX/programming_formalisms/blob/main/docs/introductions/sdlc_tools.md

Currently, when doing ls, I see:

[...]
common-practices
data_structures
DevelopmentDesign
Formalism.png
learning_line.md
[...]

Note the mix of naming styles, with dash-case, snake_case, CamelCase and Titlecase.

I suggest to follow the current most popular one, which is snake_case, which would result in:

[...]
common_practices
data_structures
development_design
formalism.png
learning_line.md
[...]

I suggest to vote on this 👍

... teachers or maybe put online here :-)

From the meeting at 2023-04-26 :-)

The course goals are at https://uppmax.github.io/programming_formalisms/.

I suggest to move these goals to 'About the course', with a page called 'Course goals'

I do this right now.

AFAICS, we use mermaid over PlantUML. This means that https://uppmax.github.io/programming_formalisms/prereqs/ can remove the part of PlantUML

We had ideas for a new order of discussing course topics, most notably by getting the workflow in place in day 1, so that we can focus on the meat of the course from then.

What about those interested suggest a new order?

And if not interested, one can unassign oneself :-)

• aggregation and composition are two different things with two different types of arrow. In the course, we use composition
• the example diagram does not make sense:

classDiagram
    Move *-- set_speed
    Move *-- set_direction
    Move *-- change_position

This suggests that a Move object is composed of a set_speed, set_direction and change_position object

classDiagram
  class Person{
    + name
    + personnummer
  }

or

classDiagram
  note "Not all strings are names"
  class Name{
    + name
    + set_name(str)
    + get_number()
  }

or

classDiagram
  note "Not all strings are names\nNot all numbers are personnummers"

  class Person{
    + name
    + personnummer
  }
  class Name{
    + name
    + set_name(str)
    + get_number()
  }
  class Personnummer{
    + number
    + set_number(int)
    + get_number()
  }
  Person *-- Name
  Person *-- Personnummer

As voted in #12 :-)

From a learner:

There is a slight inconsistency in the "Create a first version of the python code" type-along. It is suggested to create a directory "Figure", but the "plt.savefig" command saves to a "Figures" folder.

Currently, some links fail.

As priorities are not in having that clean build now, this commit removes the 'DevelopmentDesign' folder from having its links checked.

When ready to fix the links, the folder can be added again :-)

Currently, the link checker breaks on https://coderefinery.github.io/installation/shell-and-git/#installation, as this page indeed does not exist anymore.

I predict the new page is https://coderefinery.github.io/installation/git-in-terminal/, but I am not the owner of that section.

On Wednesday, we'll be working on branches.

The couse material https://uppmax.github.io/programming_formalisms/git/branches/ describes how to fix an error caused by an incorrect git SSH key.

As this error should already been encountered on Monday, documenting this again is redundant.

I suggest to remove it. Another suggestion would be to put these errors in a seperate page.

Currently, the repo has a mix of naming styles.

• the root folder follows snake_case, except for the README.md
• other folders have uppercase letters in them, e.g. extra_BC

I suggest to use a standarized naming, snake_case, where the folder mentioned would become extra_bc.

I volunteer to do this and fix the broken links.

... that will be discussed in Day 1.

It will be at https://github.com/programming-formalisms/programming_formalisms_example_project . Link is already in README.

As voted upon

Currently, we teach both git checkout or git switch

I think we should minimize the number of git commands.

To do so, we should decide upon using git checkout or git switch.

Without any research, yet the unconfirmed info that git switch is more specific to branching, combined with that we only use these git commands for branching, I'd prefer git switch slightly.

Let's vote on this 👍

As requested by the students on Day 3

The prereqs are needlessly detailed.

Can we/I simplify?

I suggest to simplify by:

• #20
• Assume learners know git: only link to other sites
• Only link to VSCode, git terminal and GitHub
• Do add: how to verify each of these things work
• Remove using SSH keys for git: it is clever, yet not a goal of the course

I volunteer to do these

Currently, there are spelling errors in the 'DevelopmentDesign' folder.

As priorities are not on fixing these spelling errors now, this commit excludes the folder from a spell check.

When spelling checking is desired again, that folder can be added again :-)

The current prereqs are tested for Windows and Mac only.

A Linux user should check if this works for Linux too.

Will be at https://github.com/programming-formalisms/programming_formalisms_project_autumn_2023 . Link is already at README.

Share your GitHub username here and we'll add you to the team :-)

This is needed to work on the learners' project at https://github.com/programming-formalisms/programming_formalisms_project_summer_2024 👍

Me and Lars think at would be better if:

• first, get a list of class names. The learners reach an agreement
• second, combine these in one class diagram with 'has-a' relationships between classes. The learners reach an agreement
• [edit: do not assign an owner of each class ], as the learners took responsibility for all classes

Make all exercises part of implementing the project. including the TDD/Pair programming exercise maybe some sort of status function and movement function not necessarily OO but in a way that the learners can see what to implement once they start going into the simulation algorithms

We have not reflected/evaluated yet, but that can be done individually as well: all of mine are at https://github.com/UPPMAX/programming_formalisms/tree/main/reflections/2024_summer

As voted upon:

## Which section(s) scheduled enough time for exercises?

This schedule is in the incorrect order, see the HackMD for the correct one

Work on issue_25 branch

We agreed to share our dream evaluation here, that will be held anonymously.

We all agreed that we follow the NBIS anonymous evaluation too: it's a requirement :-)

Mine:

- What should we keep doing?
- Which section(s) scheduled enough time for exercises?
- What should we improve?
- Other comments?