Source code
Official dataset source · Buse/71
Sample
Buse/71
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.736 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 77.8Δ 11.1 |
| Scalabrino | 0.911 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 95.5Δ 28.8 |
| Dorn | 0.692 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 64.6Δ 2.0 |
| Mi | 0.747 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 91.9Δ 25.3 |
| LLOC | 6 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 11.6Δ 55.1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 81.8Δ 15.2 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 16 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 47.0Δ 19.7 |
| BTTF | 0.716 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 90.9Δ 24.2 |
| Human | 3.69 | 1–5; original rating | 66.7 |
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. | 4.78 | −7.171 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 153.731 | −5.073 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 11 | +4.4 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 1.026 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.026) = 0.736.
| Score | 0.911 |
|---|
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. | 53 | +1.42 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 4.417 | −0.733 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 1 | −0.703 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 12 | +0.611 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 10.907 | −0.257 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 9 | +0.214 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.078 | +0.188 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.811 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.811) = 0.692.
| Score | 0.747 |
|---|
| Score | 6 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is clean and readable. It uses a clear method name, handles a null case early, and applies modifiers with straightforward conditional checks. Each action is on its own line, nesting is minimal, and intent is clear. Minor deduction: the method only shows partial logic (public) and the comment is somewhat sparse, but overall structure and flow are good.
Run 2
The code is clear and well-structured. It has a logical flow: initialize default, handle null, then check modifiers. Nesting is shallow with simple if statements. Intent is obvious from the method name and comments. It is concise and each line performs a single action. The reading flow is natural and easy to follow. Minor points deducted for potential lack of an else-if optimization, but readability remains high.
Run 3
The code exhibits clear structure with a single, well-defined responsibility: translating BeanShell modifiers to ASM bitflags. It uses minimal nesting with only two simple, early-exit conditionals, which keeps the logic flat and easy to follow. Intent is straightforward and reinforced by the Javadoc comment. The code is concise without being cryptic; each conditional performs exactly one action, aligning with good action granularity. Reading flow is natural, from initial check to individual flag assignments. Minor deductions apply because using bitwise OR with a compound assignment (`|=`) would more precisely convey the intent of accumulating independent bitflags, and the code snippet ends abruptly mid-logic, leaving the implementation incomplete for full evaluation.
Run 1
Code Structure: logically organized initialization, null guard, and modifier check, though the snippet is incomplete. Nesting: shallow, with a guard clause avoiding extra nesting. Clarity of intent: the comment and method name clearly describe modifier-to-bitflag translation; bitwise OR would express flag accumulation more clearly than addition. Code length: concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: each statement performs one action. Reading flow: natural top-to-bottom progression, although uneven spacing and the missing method ending reduce readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized, with initialization, a null guard, and modifier translation, though the snippet is incomplete. Nesting: Flat and easy to follow, using an early return. Clarity of intent: The comment and method name clearly explain the conversion, but bitwise OR would express flag accumulation more clearly than addition. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression, aided by whitespace, although inconsistent spacing and omitted conditional braces slightly reduce readability.
Run 3
Code Structure: Logically organized with initialization, a null guard, and modifier translation, though the snippet is incomplete. Nesting: Flat and easy to follow, with only simple conditional statements. Clarity of intent: The method name and documentation clearly describe conversion to ASM flags; using += rather than bitwise |= makes flag accumulation less explicit. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single action. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression, although inconsistent spacing, omitted conditional braces, and the missing method ending slightly reduce readability.