Akim has been helped by:
Arnaud Fabre, Roland Levillain, Gilles Walbrou
Arnaud Fabre, Bastien Gueguen, Benoît Monin, Chloé Boivin, Fanny Ricour, Gilles Walbrou, Julien Nesme, Philippe Kajmar, Tristan Carel
|TC-0||Wed 2005-03-09||Tue 2005-03-15 23:42||Bastien Gueguen|
|TC-1||Rush||Fri 2005-03-18||Sun 2005-03-19 9:00||Guillaume Bousquet|
|TC-2||Mon 2005-03-21||Sun 2005-04-03||Nicolas Rateau|
|TC-3||Rush||Fri 2005-04-08 20:00||Sun 2005-04-10 12:00||Fanny Ricour|
|TC-4||Mon 2005-04-18||Sun 2005-05-01||Julien Nesme|
|TC-5||Mon 2005-05-09||Sun 2005-06-05||Benoît Monin|
|TC-6||Mon 2005-06-06||Sun 2005-06-12||Philippe Kajmar|
|TC-7||Mon 2005-06-13||Sun 2005-06-19||Gilles Walbrou|
|TC-8||Mon 2005-06-20||Mon 2005-06-27||Arnaud Fabre|
|TC-9||Mon 2005-06-20||Sun 2005-07-03||Arnaud Fabre|
|Final submission||Wed 2005-07-06|
Criticisms about Tiger 2007 include:
Too much cheating during TC-5. Some would like more repression; that’s fair enough. We will also be stricter during the exams.
After a submission, there should be longer debriefings, including details about common errors. Some of the mysterious test cases should be explained (but not given in full). Maybe some bits of C++ code too.
More justification of the overall design is demanded. Some selected parts, typically TC-5, should have a UML presentation.
Keep the tarball simple to use. We have to improve the case of tcsh. Also: give the tarball before the presentation by the assistants.
Assistants should be given a map of where to look at. The test suite should be evaluated at each submission. The use of version control too.
They want more of them! We have more: see TC-R, TC-D, and TC-I.
There should be a presentation of them.
TC-3, a rush, took several groups by surprise.
Some groups would have liked to have the files earlier: in the future we will publish them on the Wednesday, instead of the last minute.
Some groups have found it very difficult to be several working together on the same file (binder.cc of course). This is also a problem in the group management, and use of version control: when tasks are properly assigned, and using a tool such as Subversion, such problems should be minimal. In particular, merges resulting from updates should not be troublesome! Difficult updates result from disordered edition of the files. Dropping the use of a version control manager is not an answer: you will be bitten one day if two people edit concurrently the same file. One option is to split the file, say binder-exp.cc and binder-dec.cc for instance. I (Akim) leave this to students.
Some students would have preferred not to have the declaration of
Binder::decs_visit, but the majority prefers: we will stay
on this version, but we will emphasize that students are free not to
follow our suggestions.
Several people would like more time to do it. But let’s face it: the time most student spend on the project is independent of the amount of available time. Rather, early oral exams about TC-5 should suffice to prompt students to start earlier.
People agree it is harder, and mainly because of compiler construction issues, not C++ issues. But many students prefer to keep it this way, rather than completely giving away the answers to compiler construction related problems.