Write 2 WebGL programs (HTML and JavaScript) to generate a Sierpiński Gasket (as named by Benoit B Mandelbrot) in 2D. One of your programs will use the random algorithm (Chaos Game, introduced by Barnsley) and the other will use the recursive algorithm. You may use the sample code discussed in class as starting points for your work.
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (6) | Code functions as required and code is easily readable | Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable | Completed but code does not function as required | Not completed |
Comments (2) | Comments well written and explain rationale | Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale | Comments not consistently done | Little to no comments in code |
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (6) | Code functions as required and code is easily readable | Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable | Completed but code does not function as required | Not completed |
Comments (2) | Comments well written and explain rationale | Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale | Comments not consistently done | Little to no comments in code |
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (6) | Code functions as required and code is easily readable | Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable | Completed but code does not function as required | Not completed |
Comments (2) | Comments well written and explain rationale | Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale | Comments not consistently done | Little to no comments in code |
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (6) | Code functions as required and code is easily readable | Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable | Completed but code does not function as required | Not completed |
Comments (2) | Comments well written and explain rationale | Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale | Comments not consistently done | Little to no comments in code |
This assignment is worth 8 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation (6) | Code functions as required and code is easily readable | Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable | Completed but code does not function as required | Not completed |
Comments (2) | Comments well written and explain rationale | Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale | Comments not consistently done | Little to no comments in code |