What's the minimum score for exams?

Hi,
I'm playing with some tests for MCAD - Transcender's from 2002 - and I got
over 700 points at each thus failing them.
I'm curious, what's the minimum score to pass the exam?

Thank you,
Dan

BTW, one recent question, that made me fail a test, has this answer:
"Constructors cannot be defined as private"...WTF?!
is this the kind of tests Transcender releases????

Have you met such wrong answer tests?

 

What would be the point in defining a constructor as private though?

700 is the min to pass.

Good luck!
Simon.

 

If you wanted to create a "static" class, i.e. prevent clients from
instantiating the class, you can declare the default constructor as private.
In .NET 1.1, the static keyword can not be applied to classes, but can be
applied to methods. In .NET 2.0, the static keyword can be applied to
classes as well.

 

You use a private constructor when implementing the Singleton pattern - "a
single instance of an object"
(see GOF).

 

which exams are you studying for/have you taken?


mark

 

so does .net 1.0 allow a static class?

 

I have taken, 70-316, 70-315, 70-320 and now about to study for 70-300.

Simon.

 

I think it's a shame that one can get so far in the MCAD/MCSD
certification process w/out having mastered this subject (static
constructors/static classes). i feel it's a downfall of the
certification process (rather than our fault).

i have noticed that these little gems of OO s/w dev knowledge are not
(generally) taught per se, as they are more of a generic fundamental
than a specific exam topic. i would have liked to have seen more of
these 'gems' included in my learning (mcp->mcad->mcsd), but can see the
difficulty in trying to find 'homes' for them, eg should this one be
included in the windows dev exam, or the web dev exam, etc.

maybe there should be a separate exam that covers generic s/w dev
fundamentals, common patterns, best practices, etc. does anyone know if
there's any change in the situation in terms of the new set of
certifications?


mark

 

I guess it is because Microsoft does not see how static constructors are an
important subject for this exam.

I am very OO aware. I started with Smalltalk/COBOL then started using OO
COBOL for many years and now C#. I must admit, I have never had a use for
static/private constructors. If you have a class with a bunch of static
members it wouldn't make sense to have a constructor at all. I practice XP
(Agile development methodology) and I am a firm believer in its principles.
The first thing XP teaches you is simplicity. I see so many peoples code
with blank constructors, why! Just remove them if you don't need them. So if
you have a static class with all static members/fields etc why do you care
if an instance of the class is created? Maybe I am not understanding your
point, please explain to me why this is important?

OO concepts come with experience. The certification process tests knowledge
of technical subjects and technologies to be applied to certain business
problems not design and object oriented fundementals. There are other
certifications that target these areas such as the new MCA comming soon.

Simon.

 

If you do not add a default constructor to a class, the framework will
create one...
One purpose - among others - of the private constructor is to signal that
the class should not have one.
( speaking of knowing .NET technology )

So if

Again, speaking of simplicity (and performance), if there's no need for an
instantiable class, why create one?

Maybe I am not understanding your