RUBRIC PART ONE : STYLE

Attribute

Unacceptable

Meets Requirements

Exemplary

Points

Presentation

Information

Missing Information

[0.5] Properly prepared for submission; includes all student names; TA; Lab section; Assignment number.

N/A

Files

Missing files

[0.5] All included: required source, documentation, script, instruction (readme) files

N/A

Demo: [worth triple]

Major Problems: Program won't run or crashes unexpectedly. Submitted code seems different from that demonstrated. Programmers seemed confused by the program they were demonstrating. Only one group member participated (out of three).

[1.0] Minor Problems: Program runs reasonably well. Knew what they were doing. Submitted code matches demo. One group member did not participate.

[2.0] Good! Demo went well; major features shown and explained. Demonstrators clearly understood their work. All group members participated.

*

Presentation Total

/3

Documentation

Overall Impression

Misleading; confusing; too much or too little

[0.5] A few missing, redundant, or irrelevant parts

[1.0] Accurate; reasonable; easy to read;

Identifier Names

Meaningless or misleading names

[0.5] Some poor choices. Most identifiers were explained where appropriate.

[1.0] Meaningful identifier names [some single letter names are OK, such as i,j for indices]. Explanations of identifiers where appropriate.

Indentation; White Space

Misleading indentation; too much or too little white space

[0.5] Some inconsistencies; some inadequate or wasted space

[1.0] Consistent indentation; good use of white space

External Documentation

No external documentation when some is needed. External documentation not useful, confusing, out of date, or misleading

[0.5] Adequate external documentation [javadoc or reasonable facsimile]. The key point is that someone else could work with this program with a little help from the original programmer(s).

[1.0] External doc. as appropriate; [javadoc or reasonable facsimile]. The key point is that someone else could work with this program based on code and documentation alone.

*

Classes & Logical Blocks

Few or no logical blocks documented

[1.0] Most MAJOR logical blocks documented

[2.0] Documentation for each function and MAJOR loop and MAJOR logical block (possible use of Pre & Post Conditions for functions / blocks)

*

Classes:

Missing class diagrams

[0.5] Reasonable attempt at class diagrams: some sort of picture that shows the classes defined and their relationships to each other.

[1.0] Includes some readable form of class diagram – includes public interface; organized pictures

*

Documentation Total

/7

Style

Implemented what was asked.

Hardly followed specs; no explanations for deviations

[1.0] Some deviations; mostly OK

[2.0] Followed specs (deviations well justified – marker was convinced this approach was reasonable)

*

Style & Efficiency

Program Subdivisions (classes and functions) & Flow

Poor choices of code; too many awkward structures

Too many or too few subdivisions: piles of one-liners or almost everything's in one function.

 Rule-of-thumb: functions/methods shouldn't be much more than one printed page long.

Confusing; hard to follow

[1.0] Mostly well thought out; most parts reasonably efficient; a few remaining awkward parts

Mostly reasonable with a few poor choices

**************************

 Mostly Logical, justifiable structure

[2.0] Well thought out; reasonably efficient (code & data structures)

Reasonable subdivisions (classes/ functions – tasks; roles; behaviors & responsibilities make sense);

*

Constants; Magic Numbers, Globals

Magic numbers; hard-coded values Inappropriate use of globals.

[0.5] Appropriate use of constants Most globals properly justified.

N/A

*

Initialization & Clean-up

Insufficient: Uninitialized values; no clean-up

[0.5] Good! Reasonable initialization and clean-up

N/A

*

Design Total

/5

[Rubric One] Style Total:

   /15