What's the minimum score for exams?

Discussion in 'MCAD' started by Daniel, Mar 31, 2006.

  1. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    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?
     
    Daniel, Mar 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Daniel

    Simon Hart Guest

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

    700 is the min to pass.

    Good luck!
    Simon.
     
    Simon Hart, Mar 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Daniel

    rmacias Guest

    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.
     
    rmacias, Apr 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    You use a private constructor when implementing the Singleton pattern - "a
    single instance of an object"
    (see GOF).
     
    Daniel, Apr 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Daniel

    Mark Guest

    which exams are you studying for/have you taken?


    mark
     
    Mark, Apr 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Daniel

    Mark Guest

    so does .net 1.0 allow a static class?
     
    Mark, Apr 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Daniel

    Simon Hart Guest

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

    Simon.
     
    Simon Hart, Apr 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Daniel

    Mark Guest

    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
     
    Mark, Apr 3, 2006
    #8
  9. Daniel

    Simon Hart Guest

    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.
     
    Simon Hart, Apr 3, 2006
    #9
  10. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    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 :p )

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

    Maybe I am not understanding your
     
    Daniel, Apr 3, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.