Source code
Official dataset source · Buse/60
Sample
Buse/60
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.927 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 88.9Δ 10.1 |
| Scalabrino | 0.835 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 69.7Δ 9.1 |
| Dorn | 0.653 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 58.6Δ 20.2 |
| Mi | 0.715 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 83.8Δ 5.1 |
| LLOC | 3 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 88.9Δ 10.1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 96.0Δ 17.2 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 20 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 100.0Δ 21.2 |
| BTTF | 0.659 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 85.9Δ 7.1 |
| Human | 3.88 | 1–5; original rating | 78.8 |
Views
Select the downloaded ZIP or its extracted folder. Files stay in your browser.
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 3.993 | −5.99 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 58.81 | −1.941 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 4 | +1.6 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 2.54 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.54) = 0.927.
| Score | 0.835 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 64 | +0.954 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 5 | +0.859 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 1 | −0.703 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 3.815 | −0.357 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.075 | +0.213 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.631 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.631) = 0.653.
| Score | 0.715 |
|---|
| Score | 3 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable due to its clean, flat structure and clear logical organization. It performs three distinct actions in sequence: retrieving a boolean response, removing a dialog, and returning the response. Each line represents a single action, contributing to excellent action granularity. The intent is unambiguous—obtain a response, clean up the dialog, and pass the result back. The code is concise with no unnecessary complexity or deep nesting, and the reading flow follows a natural top-to-bottom progression. The only minor improvement could be adding a blank line before the return statement to visually separate the cleanup action from the final return, but overall this is nearly ideal in terms of readability.
Run 2
The code is clear and concise. It performs two distinct actions—retrieving a boolean and removing the dialog—then returns the result. The single return statement keeps flow natural. Minor concerns: the variable name 'response' is slightly generic, and there is no error handling, but the structure is flat, with one action per line and clear intent. The leading indentation in the original is slightly off, but that is likely a formatting artifact from the snippet. Overall, the code is highly readable with no unnecessary complexity.
Run 3
The code is highly readable: it has a clear linear structure, no nesting, and each line performs a distinct action. The variable names are descriptive (response, warehouseDialog), and the sequence reads naturally: get response, remove dialog, return response. It is concise and avoids unnecessary complexity. Minor deduct: left blank line and indentation suggest part of a larger method, but as shown it is clean.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically organized sequence retrieves the response, removes the dialog, and returns the result. Nesting: Flat, with no nested blocks. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method and variable names make the purpose clear. Code length: Three concise statements with no unnecessary code. Action granularity: Each line performs one distinct action. Reading flow: The straightforward progression from retrieval through cleanup to return is easy to follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: logically ordered steps retrieve the response, remove the dialog, and return the saved value. Nesting: entirely flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: descriptive names make the purpose clear, though the exact effect of remove depends on surrounding context. Code length: concise, with no unnecessary statements. Action granularity: each line performs one distinct action. Reading flow: natural and easy to follow, preserving the response before removing the dialog.
Run 3
Code Structure: A logically organized sequence retrieves the response, removes the dialog, and returns the result. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names make the purpose clear. Code length: Three concise statements with no unnecessary code. Action granularity: Each line performs one action. Reading flow: The operations follow a natural order, preserving the response before removing the dialog.