Skip to content

Precourse 2 #1791

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

HarshaReddyVardhan
Copy link

No description provided.

@super30admin
Copy link
Owner

The student has demonstrated a strong understanding of fundamental algorithms across multiple files. Here's a detailed evaluation:

  1. Exercise_1 (Binary Search - C++ and Java):

    • Correctness: Both implementations correctly implement recursive binary search.
    • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n).
    • Space Complexity: Correctly noted as O(log n) due to recursion stack.
    • Code Quality: Clean, well-structured code with proper comments.
    • Improvement: Could mention that iterative approach would reduce space to O(1).
  2. Exercise_2 (QuickSort - C++):

    • Correctness: Proper implementation of QuickSort with correct partitioning.
    • Time Complexity: Should be noted as O(n log n) average case, O(n²) worst case.
    • Space Complexity: O(log n) due to recursion stack.
    • Code Quality: Good structure, but could benefit from more comments explaining the partition logic.
  3. Exercise_3 (Middle of Linked List - C++):

    • Correctness: Correct implementation of fast/slow pointer technique.
    • Time Complexity: O(n) as it traverses the list once.
    • Space Complexity: O(1) - excellent constant space usage.
    • Code Quality: Very clean and efficient implementation.
  4. Exercise_4 (MergeSort - Java):

    • Correctness: Proper implementation of merge sort.
    • Time Complexity: Correct O(n log n) in all cases.
    • Space Complexity: O(n) for temporary arrays - should be noted.
    • Code Quality: Well-structured with good separation of merge logic.
  5. Exercise_5 (Iterative QuickSort - C++):

    • Correctness: Correct implementation using stack.
    • Time Complexity: Same as recursive version (O(n log n) avg, O(n²) worst).
    • Space Complexity: O(log n) for stack - better than recursive version's worst case.
    • Code Quality: Good use of stack, but could benefit from more comments.

General Strengths:

  • Consistent implementation across languages
  • Good understanding of algorithm complexities
  • Proper use of standard techniques (fast/slow pointers, partitioning, etc.)

Areas for Improvement:

  • Could add more comments explaining algorithm steps
  • Should mention edge cases (empty arrays, single element cases)
  • Time/Space complexity analysis could be more detailed for some exercises
  • Could consider adding input validation

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants