Completed Design-2

[sainathek1999]

Completed Design-2

[super30admin]

The student's solutions are well-written and correctly implement the required functionalities. The time and space complexities are accurately stated, and the code is clean and modular.

Strengths:

• Clear and concise comments explaining the approach.
• Proper handling of edge cases (e.g., empty stacks in MyQueue, non-existent keys in MyHashMap).
• Good use of data structures (stacks for MyQueue, array of linked lists for MyHashMap).

Areas for Improvement:

• For MyHashMap, consider using a better hash function or dynamic resizing to reduce the likelihood of collisions and improve performance in the worst case.
• For MyQueue, while the implementation is correct, the student could mention the amortized time complexity in the comments for clarity.

[super30admin]

• Strengths:
  • Both implementations are correct and efficient, matching the expected time and space complexities.
  • The code is well-commented, making it easy to understand the logic and approach.
  • The use of helper methods (like getPrimaryHash in MyHashMap) improves readability and modularity.
• Areas for Improvement:
  • In MyHashMap, the remove method could be optimized by breaking the loop immediately after removing the node to avoid unnecessary iterations.
  • Consider adding a brief explanation of the hash function's choice (e.g., why 1000 buckets) in the comments for MyHashMap.
  • For MyQueue, the peek method could be reused in the pop method to avoid code duplication, similar to the reference solution.