# 代做159100留学生作业、代做Programming作业、C++编程语言作业调试、代写C++实验作业 代做Java程序|代做留学生Processing

Course: 159100 Introduction to Programming
Assessment: 01 Computer Programmes & 02 Computer Programmes
Course Learning Outcomes Assessed:
• Define variables and perform input/output operations.
• Control program flow with conditional and iteration statements.
• Write, compile and debug C++ programs.
Weighting: 30 %
Due Date: 6 September, 5:00 PM
This is an individual assessment.
Introduction
Massey University’s School of Food and Advanced Technology (SF&AT) has a water jet cutter (see
below). It is commonly used to cut 2D shapes out of metal sheets. The water jet uses water and garnet
to cut through the metal. The garnet is a consumable material that needs to be topped-up after the
water jet cutter has been used.
Figure 1: SF&AT's water jet cutter.
SF&AT’s Technical Services Manager, Mr Sean Rasmussen, wants to know the following:
• How frequently is the water jet cutter used each month?
• What day of the week is the water jet cutter most used on?
• What is the shortest, average, and longest times the water jet cutter is operated for each
month?
• What is the smallest, average, and largest amount of garnet used each month?
You are required to write a C++ program that answers these questions using the data provided.
Aims
The assessment’s aims are to demonstrate proficiency in:
• Writing, building, and running a C++ program.
• Defining a variable and using it.
• Using statements to control the flow of a program.
• Using functions.
Objectives
The assessment’s objective is to:
• Write a C++ program that answer’s Sean’s questions.
The program should be able to:
• Load the given data into appropriate arrays.
• Use functions to compute the minimum, average, and maximum values in an array.
• Display the computed results.
The program should define and use functions named:
• minimum().
• average().
• maximum().
You need to define the type of the variable each function returns and the type/s of its parameter/s.
The program’s output should be formatted similar to the following:
Frequency
Times used in month 1 10
Times used in month 2 20
Most common day in month 1 Monday
Most common day in month 2 Tuesday
Shortest Average Longest
Run time in month 1 1.0 h:m:s 2.0 h:m:s 3.0 h:m:s
Run time in month 2 2.5 h:m:s 4.5 h:m:s 6.5 h:m:s
Smallest Average Largest
Garnet used in month 1 1.0 kg 2.0 kg 3.0 kg
Garnet used in month 2 3.2 kg 4.2 kg 5.2 kg
Requirements
You are required to:
• Write a C++ program that addresses the assessment’s objectives.
• Write a report detailing what you did, how, and why.
Resources
You will be provided with the following:
• Historical data collected from the SF&AT’s water jet cutter.
Submission Instructions
Add all your source code files and report to a .zip archive and name it in the following format:
FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_ID.zip. Do not include your build directory.
Hints
01/02/2020 was a Saturday.
01/03/2020 was a Sunday.
• array.
• string.
• iomanip.
• iostream.
The following code shows how to read in a line of input;
std::cout << "Enter the date (D/M/Y); start time (H/M/S);
end time (H/M/S); and material used (KG):" << std::endl;
std::string line {};
std::getline(std::cin, line);
You could store a date or time value in an array<> container or a string. For example, the date
01/01/2020 could be stored as follows:
std::array dateArray {1, 1, 2020};
std::string dateString {"01/01/2020"};
You may find the array<> container’s at() function helpful.
You may find the string’s find() and substr() functions helpful.
The following code shows how to display an array<> container’s elements values and a string’s
values as a date:
std::cout << dateArray.at(0) << "/" << dateArray.at(1) << "/" <<
dateArray.at(2) << std::endl;
std::cout << dateString << std::endl;
Q. How long should the report be?
A. It should be between 1000 – 1500 words.
Q. What Integrated Development Environment (IDE) should I use?
A. You should use Qt Creator.
Q. What compiler should I use?
A. You should use Qt’s MinGW kit’s compiler.
Q. Can I get an extension?
A. Yes, but only if it’s for a good reason. Extensions will be granted at course or offering
coordinator’s discretion.
Program Marking Rubric
The program is worth 2/3 of the assessment’s final grade.
D Range (40 – 49.99) C Range (50 – 64.99) B Range (65 – 79.99) A Range (80 – 100) Weighting
Program
The program’s source code doesn’t
compile.
Each variable is named poorly. Each
variable’s data type matches the data it
is supposed to store poorly.
Functions are partially used.
Each function is named poorly. Each
function’s return type and input and
output parameters matches the data it is
supposed to work with poorly.
A common naming convention is
partially used. The source code’s
formatting is poor.
The program’s source code compiles,
but it has a lot of warning messages.
Each variable is named adequately. Its
purpose can be partially deduced from
its name. Each variable’s data type
matches the data it is supposed to store
A modular style of programming is
partially used throughout the program’s
source code. Functions are partially
used.
Each function is named adequately. Its
purpose can be partially deduced from
its name. Each function’s return type and
input and output parameters matches
the data it is supposed to work with
document the source code. A common
naming convention is partially used. The
The program run, but has major issues. It
partially displays output in the format
specified.
The program’s source code compiles, but
it has some warning messages.
Each variable is named well. Its purpose
can be deduced from its name. Each
variable’s data type matches the data it
is supposed to store well.
A modular style of programming is
largely used throughout the program’s
source code. Functions are largely used.
Each function is named well. Its purpose
can be deduced from its name. Each
function’s return type and input and
output parameters matches the data it is
supposed to work with well.
Comments are used well to document
the source code. A common naming
convention is largely used. The source
code’s formatting is good.
The program runs, but has minor issues.
It largely displays output in the format
specified.
The program’s source code compiles
with no warnings or errors.
Each variable is named extremely well.
Its purpose can easily be deduced from
its name. Each variable’s data type
matches the data it is supposed to store
extremely well. Each variable is initialised
when defined.
A modular style of programming is used
throughout the program’s source code.
Functions are used extremely well. Each
function does one task very well.
Each function is named extremely well.
Its purpose can easily be deduced from
its name. Each function’s return type and
input and output parameters matches
the data it is supposed to work with
extremely well. Arguments are passed by
value or passed by reference, where
appropriate.
Comments are used extremely well to
document the source code. A common
naming convention is used consistently.
The source code’s formatting is
excellent.
The program runs without any issues.
It displays output in the format specified.
100 %
Report Marking Rubric
The report is worth 1/3 of the assessment’s final grade.
D Range (40 – 49.99) C Range (50 – 64.99) B Range (65 – 79.99) A Range (80 – 100) Weighting
Introduction
The report’s introduction is poor. It
summarises the assessment’s
motivation, aim, and objectives. It
summarises the work contained in the
report.
The report’s introduction is adequate. It
presents the assessment’s motivation,
aim, and objectives. It presents the work
contained in the report. It summarises
the report’s structure.
The report’s introduction is good. It
describes the assessment’s motivation,
aim, and objectives. It describes the
work contained in the report. It presents
the report’s structure.
The report’s introduction is excellent. It
discusses the assessment’s motivation,
aim, and objectives. It discusses the work
contained in the report. It presents the
report’s structure.
5 %
Algorithm
The report’s algorithm section is poor. It
summarises the developed algorithm.
The report’s algorithm section is
algorithm. It relates the algorithm to the
assessment’s motivation, aims, and
objectives. A figure is used to illustrate
the algorithm.
The report’s algorithm section is good. It
describes the developed algorithm and
its key stages. It discusses the algorithm
in relation to the assessment’s
motivation, aims, and objectives. A figure
is used to illustrate the algorithm.
The report’s algorithm section is
excellent. It discusses the developed
algorithm; justifying its key stages, and
in relation to the assessment’s
motivation, aims, and objectives.
Appropriate figures are used to illustrate
the algorithm.
30 %
Methodology
The report’s methodology is poor. It
summarises what was done. Some code
snippets are presented. A few tables,
figures, and listings are used to help
explain the work done.
The report’s methodology is adequate. It
describes what was done. The tools,
libraries, and language used are
presented. Code snippets are presented.
A few tables, figures, and listings are
used to help explain the work done.
The report’s methodology is good. It
describes what was done and how. The
tools, libraries, and language used are
described. Relevant code snippets are
explained. Some relevant tables, figures,
and listings are used to help explain the
work done.
The report’s methodology is excellent. It
discusses what was done, how, and why.
The tools, libraries, and language used
are discussed. Relevant code snippets
are explained in detail. A lot of relevant
tables, figures, and listings are used to
help explain the work done.
30 %
Results
The report’s results section is poor. It
summarises the implemented
algorithm’s output.
The report’s results section is adequate.
It presents a limited analysis of the
implemented algorithm’s output;
critiquing it in terms of a few relevant
metrics.
The report’s results section is good. It
presents an analysis of the implemented
algorithm’s output; critiquing it in terms
of some relevant metrics.
The report’s results section is excellent.
It presents a detailed analysis of the
implemented algorithm’s output;
critiquing it in terms of relevant metrics.
20 %
Conclusion
The report’s conclusion is poor. It
summarises the assessment’s outcome.
The report’s conclusion is adequate. It
presents the assessment’s outcome. It
relates the outcome to the assessment’s
motivation, aims, and objectives.
The report’s conclusion is good. It
describes the assessment’s outcome. It
discusses the outcome in relation to the
assessment’s motivation, aims, and
objectives.
The report’s conclusion is excellent. It
discusses the assessment’s outcome. It
discusses the outcome in relation to the
assessment’s motivation, aims, and
objectives, and other relevant works.
5 %
Overall
The report is poor. It includes a few
tables, figures, or listings. It summarises
what was done. It has a lot of spelling,
grammar, and punctuation issues. Its
fluency is poor.
The report is adequate. It includes a few
relevant tables, figures, and listings. It
describes what was done. It has a lot of
spelling, grammar, or punctuation issues.
Its fluency is good.
The report is good. It includes some
relevant tables, figures, and listings. It is
easy to read. It describes what was done
and how. It has some spelling, grammar,
or punctuation issues. Its fluency is good.
The report is excellent. It includes a lot of
relevant tables, figures, and listings. It is
very easy to read. It discusses what was
done, how, and why. It has a few
spelling, grammar, or punctuation issues.
Its fluency is excellent.
10 %

• QQ：99515681
• 邮箱：99515681@qq.com
• 工作时间：8:00-23:00
• 微信：codinghelp2