Overall this class was definitely very useful towards learning about various aspects of computer science in terms of software development. Eggert was very engaging and the class wasn't as bad as I had initially thought (though the class was probably revamped and being a Sophomore helped as I had previous knowledge before coming in). Eggert is an amazing lecturer and the TAs were nice as well. The assignments were a bit difficult so they definitely took a lot of time to complete. For tests there is a wide variety of subjects tested on so it benefits to really understand how higher level concepts work as well as how to program in the ways taught during lecture.

Screw this dude. Screws us over with ridiculous projects and insane exams that are so hard to answer because he gets philosophical in his questions. He delves into a lot of redundant history and just generally goes on long tangents for extended periods of time, makes him seem like a good professor who wants to make students learn in depth but also makes me question what the point of some of his lectures is when they never make the exam. And after all this shithousery, he doesn't even curve our final grades. I ended up with a C despite being a consistently A/A- student because I did dogshit on his exams. He may have helped amplify my passion for CS, but I'm never taking another class with him again. My GPA and mental wellbeing took a strong hit with this dude.

TLDR - If you care a lot about cs at the risk of your own sanity/free time/grades, by all means ignore this review. If you just want to learn stuff and do exams and do a project, be very careful about this man and this class. It will screw you over if you're not at the very top of your game.

Dr. Eggert is a godly lecturer. You will never fall asleep in his lectures (despite the fact that they're two hours long) because each second of his speech is like honey for your ears, oozing with essential knowledge and a little bit of his eccentric humor. Even when we were just going over basic git commands, his clear and confident explanations just showed how much expertise he has in software construction. And of course he would be an expert—he literally helped write the very tools that he teaches us about. I can't think of any other professor at UCLA who has a bigger impact on free and open source software than Dr. Eggert, and I am truly grateful for his both as an awesome professor and as a pillar of the FOSS community.

Ok, I may be a bit biased, but no matter how passionate you are about FOSS, you will learn a TON from this class. It's not about memorizing Elisp functions or every generation of the HTTP protocol (you can leave those details in your notes since the exams are open-note), but more about understanding the significance, pros, and cons of different components of software construction and how they work together.

One of my favorite lectures was about building software. We started with compiling individual C files. Then, he introduced layers of automation on top of gcc, such as make and autoconf, until we concluded with system packages. It was just so satisfying to learn about how every stage combines to form a more complex system.

A lot of people really dislike CS 35L, since there's so much content and too little time to absorb it. Personally, CS 35L is my most favorite class at UCLA so far, since it taught topics like git/ssh/python/bash/make, which I LOVED learning about. HOWEVER, the class itself is still a pain in the ass. Assignments are often vague and time-consuming. As others have mentioned, this is TA-led, so your experience may vary. I was lucky to have an awesome TA that taught well.

GNU Emacs was the only thing of value that I learned in this class.

Whoa. So, before I 'defend' Emacs, I have to be very careful you know that this is not just a knee-jerk reaction and 'HeY yU iNsUlTeD mAh EmAcS', and that it is not unreasonable to think emacs is outdated. Emacs being outdated is most likely a myth, and that impression will most likely be spread by the fact that many don't use emacs, and never actually get to learn about what it is. It is often compared to text editors, namely Vim, and that is all the more reason it will just look like some old text editor, but it is not that at all. Emacs is not a text editor, emacs contains a text editor. Emacs is more like an example of ancient magic that people once had a hold on and was lost in modern times to some extent. The reason is its a full programming language interpreter with a text editor, at the bare minimum, built on top of it (and to the person who asked why 'nobody builds these things for IDE's', I don't know if that's true, but if there's any truth to it this may be partially why; not every IDE is a programming language, nor does every IDE allow full turing complete modding. Emacs is exceedingly suited for change, even ridiculous change). Better yet, the language it uses is possibly the most dynamic language in the world (lisp), one that allows you to touch and play with the code of the device while its live, and add on to it effortlessly. Hell, a language that allows you to modify the language itself. That is the pinnacle of modding and customization.

Anyways, because of this, its true power is not in its text editor -- many of us forgo the emacs text editing and just integrate vim's text editing into it. It does have a powerful text editor though, I still end up text editing Emacs style more often than Vim style, but anyways -- it is its power as a sort of operating system. You can always build new emacs tools, full programs if you will, and similarly we have continued to build emacs tools over time. You are not using 1970s emacs in 2019, it is still alive and well and extended. Emacs, as it looked when it first came out, was just a starting point, since its not like a normal program which is just a snapshot in time, but a fully organic starting point to grow anything.

It has some graphical limitations, not in functionality but in pure appearance, which can further give the appearance of being outdated, but none of the practical limitations.

Because of emacs' dynamic language nature, there is another secret gem that might be the true source of its power -- integration. Every tool you add to emacs can often be used in conjunction with every other tool in a very polymorphic way, which means adding features is less like "emacs + n + m" and more like "emacs * n * m"; every feature boosts every other feature. This has resulted in some tools that are true outliers, with true power that may not be emulated elsewhere, like org mode and magit (please look into magit if you haven't). Emacs can accommodate many workflows, and teach you some newer ones.

Anyways, as for actual emacs users, the number is not insignificant either. It doesn't have a majority usage, but I will usually see it with at least a 5% or 15% in different community interviews (example: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016 ~5.2%). Looking at this survey, that puts it on the same usage (about) as PyCharm , VsCode, and PhpStorm, differing by about 2%, and about half the users of Atom, and it has several more users (in this survey sample) than a common editor like TextMate. It is still a common editor, just with an image of being old or unused or uncommon at time, if anything because its old.

Just as a reminder for the 400th time, one of the strangest things about emacs is its called a text editor, and maybe because in the beginning, that's all there were, and that's what its image became cemented as. Emacs is an IDE, a mini operating system, and much more, and never have I gotten as much features elsewhere as I have in emacs (although I do not claim they are not there), and never have I had the combined features you get from the unique combination and integration of all these features within it. From what I've seen, some emacs features are less refined than some other IDE counterparts, others are more refined. Emacs often (not always) requires more tinkering, an IDE less so. I have had times where I was able to use a huge mod pack for emacs 'out the box' like I would an IDE, and other times where it needed some adjusting. I will say its a bit like android vs ios; android if you want to tinker and freedom, ios if you want something that just works and don't want the freedom to break something. I will not be so bold as to say emacs is going to be the universal best for everything, just that its not outdated, and that it is going to have a very long shelf life. I do possible hope to one day, however, work on a new emacs with a makeover and an overhauled branding, as the latter I think is more what emacs is outdated on; its brand. I luv emacs. T-thanks for reading

Imagine showing up to the final having memorized all 1 billion emacs commands and still getting fisted harder than any other test. People literally showed up with 500 pages of printed notes for this final. All I could do was copy directly from my notes onto the final. I literally have no idea how I got an A in this class.

AVOID THIS FUCKED UP CLASS AT ALL COST!!! The syllabus and Eggert's teaching is horrible because he's trying to squeeze AT LEAST 2 quarters worth of contents into 10 weeks. The autograder policy he implemented makes this class a fucking nightmare. Yes. one typo will make you get a zero on ALL subsequent keystrokes even if you got them right. I spent like 10 hours for each assignment trying to redo my dribble files again and again just to make the autograder accept my attempt even though I understood how does emacs really work. This class needs a reform ASAP and I don't think Eggert is a great lecturer.

This class is actually so horrible lol. The material covered is so crucial to being a programmer and I think this class has an insane amount of potential, but Eggert's teaching philosophy kills it. On HW, you basically get thrown into the deep end on purpose because programmers are supposed to be able to pick up new technologies on the fly. Well, unless you're one of the smartest people in the class, this approach will really just teach you that cheating is necessary for success. Tests are literal RNG as he picks random moments (often incredibly irrelevant ones) from lecture to turn into terribly phrased, often ambiguous questions. Although I did very well on the final and poor on the midterm, I strongly believe that neither of those tests were even a remotely accurate representation of what I knew or what was covered in class/projects. The one highlight of this class is the group project, I had a good group and found it the most fun and rewarding thing I have done at UCLA. Overall though, get ready for the relentless stress this class brings, and pray that you are smarter than your classmates as this is a pretty competitive class in terms of grading.

I feel like I learned nothing. Class was too hard for no reason. Averages for test were around 45%. No regrades allowed for finals. TAs graded tests completely wrong.

Finally passed this class. I only need a D- to get my degree, so this grade exceeds my expectations.

genuinely one of the best professor's i've ever had, and i'm not even a cs major lol