Completed PreCourse 2

[thondaha]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Overall, the student's solutions are well-structured and demonstrate a good understanding of the algorithms. Here's a detailed evaluation for each exercise:

Exercise_1 (BinarySearch):

• Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the binary search algorithm. The edge case for empty array (r == 0) is handled.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(1).
• Code Quality: Clean and readable. The variable names are appropriate.
• Improvement: The empty array check (r == 0) is not sufficient as it only checks if right index is 0. A better check would be (r < l) at the start.

Exercise_2 (QuickSort):

• Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the quicksort algorithm with proper partitioning.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n) average case.
• Space Complexity: The space complexity is actually O(log n) due to recursion stack, not O(n) as mentioned.
• Code Quality: Well-structured and readable. The partition logic is clear.
• Improvement: The space complexity comment should be corrected.

Exercise_3 (LinkedList):

• Correctness: Correctly implements the fast/slow pointer approach to find the middle.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n).
• Space Complexity: O(1) as it uses constant extra space.
• Code Quality: Clean implementation with good variable naming.
• Improvement: None needed for this implementation.

Exercise_4 (MergeSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation of merge sort with proper merging logic.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n) for the temporary arrays.
• Code Quality: Well-structured though the variable name 'subarray2' should be consistent with 'subArray1'.
• Improvement: Consider using System.arraycopy() for copying array segments for better readability.

Exercise_5 (IterativeQuickSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation using stack to remove recursion.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) for the stack.
• Code Quality: Good use of stack data structure. The XOR swap is clever but less readable than a standard swap.
• Improvement: The XOR swap, while space-efficient, is less readable and could be replaced with a standard swap for better maintainability.

General Observations:

1. The student consistently provides time and space complexity analysis, which is excellent.
2. Variable naming is generally good, with minor inconsistencies.
3. Edge cases are mostly handled well, with room for improvement in the binary search implementation.
4. The code follows good practices and is well-structured.