done

[ShrinidhiMane]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Let's evaluate each exercise one by one:

Exercise_1.java (Binary Search):

• Correctness: The implementation has a critical issue - it will cause infinite recursion when the element is not present. The base case (r < l) is missing.
• Time Complexity: O(log n) if implemented correctly.
• Space Complexity: O(log n) due to recursion stack.
• Code Quality: The code is readable but incomplete. The else condition should be mid+1 instead of just mid.
• Efficiency: Missing base case makes it inefficient.

Exercise_2.java (QuickSort):

• Correctness: The implementation appears correct for partition and sort methods.
• 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 and readable. Good job.
• Efficiency: Standard implementation, no major optimizations needed.

Exercise_3.java (Middle of Linked List):

• Correctness: Correct implementation using fast and slow pointers.
• Time Complexity: O(n).
• Space Complexity: O(1).
• Code Quality: Clean and concise. Well done.
• Efficiency: Optimal solution.

Exercise_4.java (MergeSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation of merge sort.
• Time Complexity: O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: O(n) for temporary arrays.
• Code Quality: Well-structured but could benefit from better variable names (a,b → leftArr, rightArr).
• Efficiency: Standard implementation.

Exercise_5.java (Iterative QuickSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation using stack.
• Time Complexity: O(n log n) average case, O(n^2) worst case.
• Space Complexity: O(log n) for stack.
• Code Quality: Good use of stack, but bitwise swap might be less readable than standard swap.
• Efficiency: The iterative approach is good for avoiding recursion stack overflow.

General Observations:
Strengths:

1. Good understanding of algorithms and data structures.
2. Mostly correct implementations for sorting problems.
3. Clean code structure in most exercises.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Missing base cases in recursive solutions (binary search).
2. Could use more descriptive variable names in some places.
3. The bitwise swap, while clever, might be less maintainable.
4. Need to handle edge cases better (empty arrays, null checks).