Skip to content

Conversation

@divyagrawal23
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@DhruvTrehan
Copy link
Owner

Purpose: The purpose of both codes is to implement a linked list data structure and perform various operations like insertion, deletion, search, and reverse.

Design: The design of both codes is based on the linked list data structure. The nodes are defined as a class with a data member and a pointer to the next node. Various functions are implemented to perform operations on the linked list.

Complexity: The complexity of the operations in both codes is as follows:

  • Insertion at the head: O(1)
  • Length of the linked list: O(n)
  • Insertion at the tail: O(n)
  • Insertion at the middle: O(n)
  • Deletion at the head: O(1)
  • Deletion at the tail: O(n)
  • Deletion at the middle: O(n)
  • Search using recursion: O(n)
  • Search using iteration: O(n)
  • Reversing the linked list: O(n)
    Overall, the complexity of the code is reasonable for each operation.

Readability: The code is readable and well-structured. The variable names are meaningful, and the logic is clear. However, there are some minor inconsistencies in code formatting, such as inconsistent placement of curly braces and indentation.

Comments: The code contains some comments explaining the purpose and logic of the functions. However, more comments could be added to improve the clarity of the code, especially for complex operations like reverseRec().

Error Handling: The code does not handle some error cases, such as inserting at an invalid position or deleting from an empty list. Adding error handling for these cases would improve the code's robustness.

Testing: The code performs some basic testing by creating a linked list, inserting elements, deleting elements, and searching for elements. However, more comprehensive testing could be done, covering different scenarios and edge cases.

Performance: The performance of the code is acceptable for most operations. However, the insertion at the tail operation has a time complexity of O(n) because it iterates through the entire list to find the tail node. This could be optimized by keeping track of the tail node to perform the insertion in O(1) time.

Overall, I would rate the code as follows:
Purpose: 4/5
Design: 4/5
Complexity: 4/5
Readability: 3.5/5
Comments: 3/5
Error Handling: 2/5
Testing: 3/5
Performance: 4/5
Overall: 3.5/5 cc @DhruvTrehan

@DhruvTrehan
Copy link
Owner

Purpose: The purpose of both codes is to implement a singly linked list data structure and perform various operations on it such as insertion, deletion, reversal, and searching.

Design: The design of the code is based on a node class that represents each element in the linked list. The linked list itself is represented by a head pointer that points to the first node. The code uses functions to perform operations on the linked list.

Complexity: The time complexity of the operations in the code depends on the size of the list. Insertion and deletion at the head or tail have a complexity of O(1), insertion in the middle has a complexity of O(n) in the worst case, and reversal has a complexity of O(n). Searching has a complexity of O(n) as well.

Readability: The code is reasonably readable as it includes comments and follows coding conventions. Variable and function names are meaningful, making the code easy to understand.

Comments: The code includes comments that explain the purpose and functionality of each function. This is useful for understanding what each function does.

Error Handling: The code does not have error handling for cases such as deleting from an empty list or searching for an element that does not exist. These cases should be handled to avoid potential errors.

Testing: The code includes some testing in the main function, where various operations are performed on the linked list. However, it would be better to have more comprehensive testing to cover different scenarios.

Performance: The code could have some performance improvements, especially in the insertion in the middle operation. Instead of traversing the list to find the position, a doubly linked list or a skip list could be used to achieve better time complexity for this operation.

Overall, I would rate the code as follows:
Purpose: 4/5
Design: 4/5
Complexity: 4/5
Readability: 4/5
Comments: 3/5
Error Handling: 2/5
Testing: 3/5
Performance: 3/5
Overall: 3.5/5 cc @DhruvTrehan

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.

3 participants