All the below and probably above comments about 35L are very accurate. This is a tough class. Enough said. You have to make work in groups for all the labs because I believe that they will be unfinishable if you don't.

Like all the complaints about grading, lab grades just pop up on your gradebook and that's it. Maybe if your TA is nice about it, they might put the averages on Piazza. Oh wait, the TAs grade the labs AFTER the final. Ohhhhh...so that's how I learn from...uh...what?
Furthermore, the final was absolutely disastrous. Apparently each section had a different amount of points on the final. I think one section had 100 points while Section 5 (my section) had 180 points. To put it concretely, I got 33% on the final but managed to get a B in the class which I am very satisfied.

Maybe if the grading wasn't horrendous and your sanity wasn't on the line, then this class would have been enjoyable AND useful. I mean in retrospect, I think I learned a lot about Python and scripting and Git. No kidding. But with all the grading and ridiculous assignment specs, it's just too much!

And about them specs... like the commentor below put it, Smallberg's specs are a godsend compared to this crap. Thankfully, Jerry's (TA) slides helped sooooo much because he walks you through the assignment. I mean how does Eggert expect a n00b to breeze through Git or master Python language in ONE WEEK?? How does he expect to know how to even START the assignment? Without Jerry's slides, this class would have been even more hell.

On the Googling aspect of the class, my friend and I thought about proposing to change 35L's course title on "How to search in Google." I'll let your imagination run from there.

Some positive things? I thought the SSH and buffer overflow assignment was really cool and the last paper assignment. It's always good to flex some of the writing and analysis muscles of the mind.

All in all, this is a class where NO ONE of higher seniority teaches you (i.e. a professor or TA). It's the random people on the web who give you the best guidance. Don't get me wrong, CS35L has great material to teach us but it was poorly poorly POORY designed and executed. Someone else should take over.

Eggert might be a good researcher, but def not a good professor.

I took CS 111 and 131 with Eggert and it was the best use of my time. Eggert is very knowledgeable, a great lecturer, has a lot of concern for his students' learning, and his assignments and tests are fair, though not necessarily easy. Thanks, Professor Eggert!

Eggert was an interesting professor...
Please note that my final grade in the class was an A, so I probably had a different experience in the class than other people

Grading Distribution:
According to the 94 people (from a class of over 200) that reported their final grade on piazza, there were:
19% A's, 12% A-'s
15% B+'s, 14% B's, 10% B-'s
12% C+'s, 11% C's, 1% C-
7% D or lower
While this is not even close to a comprehensive grade distribution, it will hopefully serve to give you a somewhat better understand of how the grades for this class look like. Please note that these are self reported grades on piazza and are likely not exact representations of the whole population of the class (people that did very well, for example, might be motivated to vote and thus make it seem like there are more A's percentage-wise than he actually assigned)

Course workload:
This class was way too much work. There's a 1003 page book, out of which you're assigned to read over 85% of it. This book is very technical and thorough, and thus isn't something you can easily skim over. There's 4 labs, 3 of which were convoluted, complicated, ambiguous, and difficult. The 4th one was really easy compared to the other 3, but it turns out that Eggert accidentally assigned us a CS 35L lab instead of a CS 33 lab, so the 4th lab will likely be very hard in future cs 33's. Unlike cs 32 labs, which are very well defined, these labs are very ambiguous and it's hard to really know what they're asking for. These labs take less time overall than cs 32 labs, but they're still a huge pain because there are so many incorrect ways to interpret what Eggert wants us to do.

Tests:
These tests are ridiculously difficult. They're open book, open notes, open everything sans electronic devices, and have F averages.
Midterm 1 average: 42/108
Midterm 2 average: 60/108
Final average: 92/180
Reading the book, thoroughly understanding the basic ideas presented in the book, and knowing the book examples front and back might help you do a little bit better than average, but I wouldn't waste time reading the book for tests. You should read the book if you want to understand the concepts better, but topics discussed in the book don't really appear on the assessments (because the assessments are open textbook, so he obviously isn't going to ask anything that can be found in the book). The tests focus more on what he covered in class, so be sure to comprehensively review lecture notes.
An example of how his testing style goes based off a math analogy:
The book will tell you how to solve for y if 7 + y = 5 (y = -2) //very simple
In lecture, he'll show you how to solve for y if y^2-4=0 (y= +-2) //still pretty simple, but more in depth than the book
On the test, he'll ask you how to solve for y if y^3+y+10=0 (y has 2 imaginary roots and 1 real root, and this needs to be found by applying some complicated formulas) //how the hell do you do this
Overall, expect to leave the tests with your self-confidence shattered.

My tips:
Turn in the projects late, but make sure you finish them: there's a very generous lateness penalty (1% for 1 day late, 2% for 2 days late, 4% for 3 days late, and then it keeps increasing by a power of 2), so turn everything in late but make sure to finish everything.

Don't prioritize the textbook: I was short on time and generally too tired to understand the somewhat convoluted textbook, so I didn't read the textbook for the most part. I'm not saying you shouldn't read it at all, reading the textbook is better than not reading the textbook, but not reading the textbook won't hurt you too much. Just be sure to cram all of the TA lecture notes (I used Uen-Tao's notes, those were a life saver. On a sidenote, I must say that Uen-Tao was an amazing TA, I went to his discussion even though I wasn't enrolled in his discussion because he was so articulate; 2 hours with him was much more helpful than 4 hours with eggert) and review the TA discussion notes.

Be good at bsing: Be sure to have words written down answering every question (this will generally get you 1 or 2 points if they're even somewhat relevant), and be sure to copy down words that sound correct from Uen-Tao's lecture notes. I can guarantee you that random relevant information that Eggert said during lecture will earn you partial credit.

TA's are there for you: CS 31 and 32 are classes that are pretty easy to do well in if you're willing to put in time because the material itself is pretty easy. CS 33 is nothing like those classes; this class isn't something you should expect to be able to do based off your own intelligence. The TA's will be able to guide you on the right path to finish the assignments; getting A's on the labs will otherwise be very difficult and time consuming assuming you already have a very thorough understanding of the material. If you don't get the material, theres no way you can finish the labs without asking for help.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend taking this class if you can avoid it. Those of you taking it Fall 2015 are out of luck, but if people reading this review later on have a choice, take someone else. Eggert isn't a bad professor (he's very, very, very smart and if you can keep up with the reading, his lectures will greatly help you understand the material better), it's just that most people don't have the time/dedication to keep up with the difficult and tedious coursework that this class entails. In my opinion, I did terrible in this class. I just did less terrible than everyone else...

I found the homeworks to be pretty interesting, but they're definitely time consuming, so start early. The exams are also as difficult as people say they are (we had an average of 51% on the midterm and 59% on the final). That being said, Professor Eggert is definitely enthusiastic about teaching the material and explains most concepts fairly well. I also recommend the textbook, because it came in pretty handy during the exams.

Quarter is not even over yet, and I can't stand the class anymore. Eggert for CS130 is fucking lame.

First of all, context:
CS130 is where you learn software developement cycles. The different stages of developing software, good software practice, etc.

Eggert being Eggert, potentially fun class projects turned into misery. This class can be so much fun if students got to work on their own projects that they were passionate about, projects that they can take with them after school is over and continue working on it. With good software design/practice, I believe students can come up with amazing stuff.

Instead, I'm fucking sitting here working on a software for my 'Client' that I dont give a shit about. The 'Client' is bitching that they want 'this' and 'that' functionality in their software. With the amount of tuition I pay, I feel like I'm paying for the opportunity to work of these 'Clients'.

Taking CS130 with Eggert will teach you how to become a corporate bitch.

This class can be much more fun if students get to decide on projects with classmates that they are all passionate about and work together to turn their ideas into reality. Let the students take leadership of their projects.

I hate this class.

Eggert is a very good lecturer, it just seemed like there was only time to give a handful of details about a giant subject matter. The exams, though, expected you to have a broad understanding of it all, so it made it tough to score anything presentable. Tuan is a great TA and has taught this class a few times before. He's a really big help. Go to his discussion if he's still teaching.
The other TAs seemed to be off the rails when it came to grading the non-technical projects, like the essay and the scribe notes. Really harsh grading on those. When you ask those TAs about this grading, they give totally baffling reasons. Ridiculous.
Most importantly, get a good lab partner, and remember that you can change partners between projects if it's not working out.

Eggert is an extremely smart, intelligent, funny, and insightful man; however, this does not always translate into a good teacher, and in the case of Eggert it depends on what the student puts in.

Eggert genuinely cares about his students knowledge, so much so that he purposely made his class have a very steep learning curve (as he made it clear by explicitly saying so in lecture). Eggert will come into class prepared to give very insightful lectures on whatever chapter he assigned for you to read in the textbook, but to even understand what he is talking about you need background knowledge and thus you must make an effort to learn the material BEFORE he lectures on it. There have been many lectures where I haven't read the chapter before hand and became completely lost simply because Eggert doesn't go backwards and explain a concept again unless you specifically ask him to (he is very nice and will go over anything you ask) but left on his own accord, he steamrolls ahead while you are left in the dust of your own confusion.

In addition to confusing lectures, that is nothing compared to the headaches you will receive from the project specs. Even in his specs, Eggert will believe that you always understand what he is saying without saying it and it shows when you have no idea even where to start in his project. Unlike Smallberg who explains in very good detail what is expected of you and how to approach it, Eggert barely explains what you need to accomplish. It seem at times even the TA's don't know the answers so you are forced to wait until the speak with the Professor once a week to know what you have to do.

And of course there are the dreaded tests. I have never been so unsure of my performance after a test as I have with Eggerts. Eggert will often ask one of two questions, a very very open ended question where you have to use the knowledge you learned in order to BS some answer to the best of your ability, or an problem whose answer relies solely on a very small detail you barely went over in class. Overall,they are incredibly difficult but if you know most of the concepts it is fairly easy to get above the average (as nearly no one understands anything).

Now having said all of this, I hope to take Eggert again. He is an engaging lecturer who care about the subject and his students, he just expects a huge amount of effort and creativity from them in order to do well. I know for a fact that I learned much more than those who took Reinmann's course but of course that comes with a cost as this was one of my most work intensive courses thus far while Reinmann's was an easy A or A+ for 90% of the class.
If I had to give any advice, take this course only if you want to learn. Really. I know it sounds stupid but if you just want a good GPA, an easy quarter, or you are taking this as a Tech Breath and aren't interested in a low level understanding of computers, then you are better off taking another Professor; but if this is what you came to UCLA to learn, I wouldn't waste an opportunity and take it with anyone else.

Unlike the first review here, my advice is to thoroughly read assigned readings on the course website and take down everything Eggert talked about in lectures. If you don't read those assigned readings, you won't understand anything from Eggert's lectures.

On his tests, there will be questions about what he mentioned in class in a few seconds. Most questions are "unrelated" to both the textbook and his lectures, but you will be able to reason many of them out if you understand 70% of the textbook and his lectures, In other words, you can 100 % work one question out if you understand concepts related to that question.

To get an A in Eggert's class is not difficult, but requires too much work.

Eggert is the best professor I've had at UCLA

Admittedly, he's also the hardest. This is both a function of the course material that he teaches being particularly difficult (I took him for CS111 (operating systems) and CS 131 (programming languages)) and the fact that he expects your life to revolve around his class.

Lectures: His biggest selling point is that his lectures are very interesting and very informative. He speaks loudly and clearly, with a lot of animation. It's kind of like watching a philosopher muse to himself about deep questions of the universe.

Projects: Hard. Really hard. He tells you the first day of class that you should expect to spend about 12 hours a week on projects, and I would say thats an underestimate. In CS 111, you do get a partner if you want one, so if you have a buddy you work well with, that's very helpful. Don't expect to go to too many parties while in one of his classes.

Tests: They're very difficult, due to their open-ended nature. The curve is pretty good (averages between 60 and 70 when I took the classes). It's also pretty hard to totally pwn a test, because it's pretty easy for them to doc you a few points here and there. This, combined with a lot of partial credit even for idiotic answers, has the effect of compacting the overall scores into a smaller range, meaning that you can't ace the tests and ignore the projects like some classes.

I would recommend an Eggert taught class for anyone who really wants to learn. If GPA and free time are more important to you than learning, don't take his class, because it's a difficult A.