Done with Precourse2

[Mukul585]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Let's evaluate each exercise one by one:

Exercise_1.java (Binary Search):

• Correctness: The binary search implementation is correct and follows the standard approach.
• Time Complexity: O(log n), which is optimal for binary search.
• Space Complexity: O(1), as it uses constant extra space.
• Code Quality: The code is clean and well-structured. The variable names could be more descriptive (e.g., 'm' could be 'mid').
• Efficiency: The implementation is efficient. One minor improvement could be to use l + (r - l)/2 instead of (l + r)/2 to avoid potential integer overflow.

Exercise_2.java (QuickSort):

• Correctness: The quicksort implementation is correct, including the partition and swap methods.
• Time Complexity: Average case O(n log n), worst case O(n^2).
• Space Complexity: O(log n) due to recursion stack.
• Code Quality: The code is well-organized and follows good practices. The comments are helpful.
• Efficiency: The implementation is standard. No major improvements needed.

Exercise_3.java (Linked List Middle Element):

• Correctness: The solution correctly finds the middle element using fast and slow pointers.
• Time Complexity: O(n), as it traverses the list once.
• Space Complexity: O(1), using only two pointers.
• Code Quality: The code is clean and well-structured. The method name printMiddle() could be more specific like findAndPrintMiddle().
• Efficiency: The implementation is optimal for this problem.

Exercise_4.java (MergeSort):

• Correctness: The merge sort implementation is correct, including the merge and sort methods.
• Time Complexity: O(n log n) in all cases.
• Space Complexity: O(n) for the temporary arrays.
• Code Quality: The code is well-organized and follows good practices. The variable names are clear.
• Efficiency: The implementation is standard. No major improvements needed.

Exercise_5.java (Iterative QuickSort):

• Correctness: The iterative quicksort implementation is correct, using a stack to simulate recursion.
• Time Complexity: Average case O(n log n), worst case O(n^2).
• Space Complexity: O(log n) for the stack.
• Code Quality: The code is well-structured. The swap implementation without a temporary variable is clever but could be less readable than the standard approach.
• Efficiency: The implementation is efficient. One suggestion would be to use the standard swap implementation with a temporary variable for better readability.

General Observations:

1. Strengths:

   • All implementations follow standard algorithms correctly.
   • Code is generally well-structured and readable.
   • Appropriate use of data structures and algorithms.

2. Areas for Improvement:

   • Some variable names could be more descriptive.
   • The swap implementation in Exercise_5 could be more readable.
   • Adding more comments explaining the logic in complex parts would be helpful.