Off-by-one on range boundaries
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Move from brute-force thinking to an efficient approach using array strategy.
It is a sweltering summer day, and a boy wants to buy some ice cream bars.
At the store, there are n ice cream bars. You are given an array costs of length n, where costs[i] is the price of the ith ice cream bar in coins. The boy initially has coins coins to spend, and he wants to buy as many ice cream bars as possible.
Note: The boy can buy the ice cream bars in any order.
Return the maximum number of ice cream bars the boy can buy with coins coins.
You must solve the problem by counting sort.
Example 1:
Input: costs = [1,3,2,4,1], coins = 7 Output: 4 Explanation: The boy can buy ice cream bars at indices 0,1,2,4 for a total price of 1 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 7.
Example 2:
Input: costs = [10,6,8,7,7,8], coins = 5 Output: 0 Explanation: The boy cannot afford any of the ice cream bars.
Example 3:
Input: costs = [1,6,3,1,2,5], coins = 20 Output: 6 Explanation: The boy can buy all the ice cream bars for a total price of 1 + 6 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 18.
Constraints:
costs.length == n1 <= n <= 1051 <= costs[i] <= 1051 <= coins <= 108Problem summary: It is a sweltering summer day, and a boy wants to buy some ice cream bars. At the store, there are n ice cream bars. You are given an array costs of length n, where costs[i] is the price of the ith ice cream bar in coins. The boy initially has coins coins to spend, and he wants to buy as many ice cream bars as possible. Note: The boy can buy the ice cream bars in any order. Return the maximum number of ice cream bars the boy can buy with coins coins. You must solve the problem by counting sort.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Greedy
[1,3,2,4,1] 7
[10,6,8,7,7,8] 5
[1,6,3,1,2,5] 20
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1833: Maximum Ice Cream Bars
class Solution {
public int maxIceCream(int[] costs, int coins) {
Arrays.sort(costs);
int n = costs.length;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (coins < costs[i]) {
return i;
}
coins -= costs[i];
}
return n;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1833: Maximum Ice Cream Bars
func maxIceCream(costs []int, coins int) int {
sort.Ints(costs)
for i, c := range costs {
if coins < c {
return i
}
coins -= c
}
return len(costs)
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1833: Maximum Ice Cream Bars
class Solution:
def maxIceCream(self, costs: List[int], coins: int) -> int:
costs.sort()
for i, c in enumerate(costs):
if coins < c:
return i
coins -= c
return len(costs)
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1833: Maximum Ice Cream Bars
struct Solution;
impl Solution {
fn max_ice_cream(mut costs: Vec<i32>, mut coins: i32) -> i32 {
costs.sort_unstable();
costs.reverse();
let mut res = 0;
while coins > 0 {
if let Some(cheapest) = costs.pop() {
if cheapest <= coins {
coins -= cheapest;
res += 1;
} else {
break;
}
} else {
break;
}
}
res
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let costs = vec![1, 3, 2, 4, 1];
let coins = 7;
let res = 4;
assert_eq!(Solution::max_ice_cream(costs, coins), res);
let costs = vec![10, 6, 8, 7, 7, 8];
let coins = 5;
let res = 0;
assert_eq!(Solution::max_ice_cream(costs, coins), res);
let costs = vec![1, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5];
let coins = 20;
let res = 6;
assert_eq!(Solution::max_ice_cream(costs, coins), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1833: Maximum Ice Cream Bars
function maxIceCream(costs: number[], coins: number): number {
costs.sort((a, b) => a - b);
const n = costs.length;
for (let i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (coins < costs[i]) {
return i;
}
coins -= costs[i];
}
return n;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Try every possible combination of choices. With n items each having two states (include/exclude), the search space is 2ⁿ. Evaluating each combination takes O(n), giving O(n × 2ⁿ). The recursion stack or subset storage uses O(n) space.
Greedy algorithms typically sort the input (O(n log n)) then make a single pass (O(n)). The sort dominates. If the input is already sorted or the greedy choice can be computed without sorting, time drops to O(n). Proving greedy correctness (exchange argument) is harder than the implementation.
Review these before coding to avoid predictable interview regressions.
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Wrong move: Locally optimal choices may fail globally.
Usually fails on: Counterexamples appear on crafted input orderings.
Fix: Verify with exchange argument or monotonic objective before committing.