I'm just repeating what's been expressed much more succinctly than I could ever hope to do, but in summary, if I didn't have a coding background/prior knowledge from researching the technical side of video games (I know, I'm a nerd), I would've been so screwed. Halfway through the quarter, I gave up on taking notes and just went to discussions, and I learned so much more in discussion than lectures. He kept going off slides and discussing weird technical aspects that I still cannot tell you how they work.

He basically never used the textbook, so I'm never getting that money back.

He tries teaching C++ classes through graphics, but see literally any other review here for why that's terrible. (Tl;dr, it's clunky, weird, and inefficient.)

The one thing I have to contribute to what's already been said is that Prof. Salazar never uploaded any of our homework grades. As in, any. The quarter has since ended and my homework from week 1 has yet to be entered into the grade book.

Also, the tests suck. The average on the midterm was in the mid 60's, with 4 people scoring above a 90%, and I only managed that because I've had coding experience. If I didn't have a coding background, I would've been screwed.

Overall, nothing really new to add to the general consensus that this is an overall mediocre and disorganized class.

I liked Professor Salazar, his class was straightforward and easily doable.
I didn't particularly like his teaching style, as he uses slides for his lectures, but this is my own opinion, as I don't like following slides in math classes. In addition, Professor Salazar wasn't very clear with his lectures and it can feel a bit disorganized at times.
I actually stopped showing up to lectures after the first couple, and I only ever really watched the lectures to get logistical information.

However, I think that his class overall was pretty easy, his exams were mostly computational and very similar to his homework and practice problems.

The entirety of my studying for this class was doing the homework and practice problems he assigned, and I really never showed up to his lectures.

Exams
His exams were very straightforward, pretty short, and mostly computational, and as I mentioned, his exams were of similar style to the practice problems he assigned.
I would actually say that his exam questions were the same questions as his practice problems, but with numbers changed.
He had maybe one or two conceptual questions, and they were also very straightforward and was just a true or false question with no justification needed.
So I never felt that I was being tricked or tested on something that I wasn't exposed to.

Near the end of the course, 33A content starts to become much more relevant, but it stayed mostly computational, and his assigned practice problems pretty much went over all you need to know, so it's definitely possible to take this class before 33A. (I can't speak for the content of other 33B courses, but Professor Salazar's 33B didn't draw upon too many conceptual concepts of 33A)

Overall, I don't think he deserves as low a score as he has on Bruinwalk, I think it is true that his lectures can feel a bit disorganized and unclear at times, but he is a very kind professor and his exams were very straightforward and extremely fair.
His practice problems were great to study with and were indicative of his exam questions, and even though I never showed up to lecture, I ended up with an A in the class just from doing his assigned practice problems.
I did not take 33A before this class, but I never felt at a disadvantage because of it.

If you are willing to put in the work to study yourself and do as much practice as you can, this class is definitely on the easier side.

I think he is pretty good. The quizzes he gave us were exactly chosen from homework.

Salazar may be the kindest professor at UCLA. Multiple times each week, he would remark about how difficult virtual learning is for students, and often attempted to make significant accommodations for such. He changed grading bases, offered alternate assessment styles, was flexible on deadlines, etc.
Cons: not really an engaging or ultra-clarity professor. Nevertheless, I squeaked an A by studying the textbook and doing the HW problems each week.

He mumbles and is hard to understand. He hardly ever finishes his sentences. He doesn't use numbers in his examples, but instead uses variables.

I had him for PIC 10B. It's about two weeks in and I'm strongly considering dropping. I haven't taken his midterm, and I've only done 1 homework, so I can't give an overall review, but he isn't great. He talks very quickly, is scattered and disorganized, and does not understand how to give presentations. He seems nice. I feel bad writing this review, but he is really terrible.

I had professor Ricardo Salazar for two straight quarters (Math 1 & 31,) and I can say he is a fair professor. First, his grading schemes were similar for both classes. His grading consisted of the following: two midterms, one final, homework, and quizzes. He will take out your lowest midterm grade, but will, instead, count the final at a higher percentage. Second, as a lecturer, he can be very difficult to listen to, as he mumbles, speaks softly, and has an accent. I would highly recommend you sit in the front. He mainly focuses on concepts and proofs, and seldom solved problems. He is pretty helpful in office hours, and is very approachable. The main reason people dislike him is the same reason people dislike math. As aforementioned, Salazar is a decent math professor. Would I recommend him? Sure; but ultimately, the decision is up to you.

I only took this class to learn C++ wasn't a requirement for my major, wasn't a GE or anything... I just wanted to learn how to code. But, I unfortunately didn't learn anything from Prof Salazar. I ended up taking the class P/NP and learning from the book. Unless you have to, or already have some basic knowledge of coding, try not to take his class.