Skip to content

Conversation

@Bhuvankurra
Copy link

No description provided.

@super30admin
Copy link
Owner

Let's evaluate each exercise one by one:

Exercise_1.py (Binary Search):

  • Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the binary search algorithm.
  • Time Complexity: O(log n), which is optimal for binary search.
  • Space Complexity: O(1), as it uses constant space.
  • Code Quality: The code is clean and well-structured. Good use of comments.
  • Improvement: Could add input validation to handle cases where the array isn't sorted.

Exercise_2.py (QuickSort Recursive):

  • Correctness: Correct implementation of QuickSort with proper partitioning.
  • Time Complexity: O(n log n) average case, O(n^2) worst case.
  • Space Complexity: O(log n) due to recursion stack.
  • Code Quality: Well-structured with clear partitioning logic.
  • Improvement: Could add comments explaining the partitioning strategy.

Exercise_3.py (Linked List Middle Element):

  • Correctness: Correct implementation using fast and slow pointers.
  • Time Complexity: O(n), optimal for this problem.
  • Space Complexity: O(1), using constant space.
  • Code Quality: Good class structure and clear method implementation.
  • Improvement: Could add error handling for empty list case (though it's already handled).

Exercise_4.py (MergeSort):

  • Correctness: Correct implementation of MergeSort algorithm.
  • Time Complexity: O(n log n) in all cases.
  • Space Complexity: O(n) due to auxiliary arrays.
  • Code Quality: Well-structured with clear merging logic.
  • Improvement: Could optimize space usage by creating temporary arrays once.

Exercise_5.py (QuickSort Iterative):

  • Correctness: Correct iterative implementation of QuickSort.
  • Time Complexity: O(n log n) average case, O(n^2) worst case.
  • Space Complexity: O(log n) due to explicit stack usage.
  • Code Quality: Good conversion from recursive to iterative approach.
  • Improvement: Could add comments explaining the stack usage.

General Strengths:

  • All implementations follow standard algorithms correctly.
  • Good code organization and structure.
  • Appropriate use of data structures and algorithms.

Areas for Improvement:

  • Could benefit from more detailed comments explaining the algorithms.
  • Some edge case handling could be strengthened (e.g., empty inputs).
  • Consistent formatting (some files have extra whitespace).

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