CST 338 - Week 4 Learning Journal

This journal entry is a reflection on project 1. Although I worked independently, I received helpful feedback from my classmates that gave me new perspectives on my work. Writing this reflection allowed me to think about the approach I took, what I could improve, and what I learned from both the coding process and their suggestions.

1. With whom did you work:
I worked with Manuel and Quratulain, and they were both great to work with.

2. What was your strategy for solving the assignments?
Honestly, I didn’t have much of a strategy. I started writing code right away and figured things out as I went along. I didn’t plan anything out on paper. I just read the prompt and coded piece by piece, making things work as I went.

3. What was their strategy?
Manuel built the project one step at a time, testing each part before moving on. He started by reviewing the UML diagram and project document to understand what each field and method needed to do. Then he created and tested the Monster class before adding each of the four subclasses on separate branches. This helped him focus on one class at a time and avoid breaking the main code.

Quratulain began by carefully reading the project specifications before writing any code. She started with the simpler parts, such as defining fields, getters, setters, and constructors, before moving on to the more complex behaviors like elemental interactions and attack logic. She wrote code in small increments, ran tests frequently to catch mistakes early, and used Git branches to keep major changes organized.

4. How would you change your strategy having worked on the assignment?
Next time, I would read the entire prompt twice before touching the code. I would also outline the steps in comments or pseudocode first so I know exactly what to do and in what order. Planning which parts to write first would save a lot of confusion later.

5. According to your classmates: how well does your code follow the Google Java Style Guide?
Both of my partners said my code was readable and the structure made sense. Manuel mentioned my Javadoc notes were useful but could be more consistent and formal, with clearer summaries and proper use of tags. Quratulain said the main issues were small formatting details like indentation, brace placement, and variable declaration order. Overall, they both agreed the logic and setup were solid, just a few polish points away from matching the Google Style perfectly.

6. What was the most challenging part?
The hardest part was understanding the prompt. Since I read and coded at the same time, I didn’t have a clear picture of the overall architecture at first. I assumed the prompt was written in order, which caused some confusion early on.

7. What was the most interesting?
I really enjoyed discovering new coding patterns and getting to know the Java language better. It was fun to see how small syntax changes or different structures could make the program more efficient or readable.

8. What are you the most proud of?
I am proud that I finished the project. Some of the problems were definitely self-inflicted because of my lack of planning, but I managed to debug and solve them, which felt rewarding.

9. How did you celebrate?
After finishing, I took a quiet moment to relax. I had some coffee and sweet bread. It was simple, but it felt great to sit back for a minute before moving on to the next assignment.