Source code
Official dataset source · Dorn/java/161
Sample
Dorn/java/161
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.987 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 95.5Δ 50.4 |
| Scalabrino | 0.852 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 91.9Δ 46.7 |
| Dorn | 0.893 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 93.6Δ 48.5 |
| Mi | 0.566 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 59.6Δ 14.5 |
| LLOC | 2 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 93.7Δ 48.6 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 18 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 98.3Δ 53.2 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 98.9Δ 53.8 |
| BTTF | 0.916 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 100.0Δ 54.9 |
| Human | 3.28 | 1–5; original rating | 45.1 |
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. | 4.451 | −6.677 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 10 | +4 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 55.507 | −1.832 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 4.362 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(4.362) = 0.987.
| Score | 0.852 |
|---|
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. | 66.909 | +0.831 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.025 | +0.698 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 11 | +0.647 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 6 | −0.53 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 67 | +0.277 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 9.794 | −0.273 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 2.118 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(2.118) = 0.893.
| Score | 0.566 |
|---|
| Score | 2 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. It demonstrates clear intent through a descriptive method name and a straightforward Javadoc comment that explains both the parameter and purpose. The structure is logical, with no nesting or branching. The code length is concise and appropriate for a simple setter, and the action granularity is one action per line. Reading flow is natural: documentation, method signature, then assignment. The only minor deductions are for the Javadoc being somewhat redundant for a standard setter, but this does not harm clarity.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It follows a standard setter method pattern with clear naming, a single parameter, and a concise body. The structure is logical, with a Javadoc comment explaining the purpose. Nesting is nonexistent, and the reading flow is natural. The only minor drawbacks are the slightly verbose Javadoc (which repeats the method name) and the line break in the method signature, which slightly interrupts flow but is common with longer type names.
Run 3
This code is highly readable. It follows clear Java conventions with proper JavaDoc, a descriptive method name, and a straightforward setter implementation. The structure is logical, the nesting is flat, and the intent is immediately clear. The code is concise with one action per line, and the reading flow is natural. Minor deductions could be made for minor verbosity in the JavaDoc or the parameter name being long, but overall it is exemplary in terms of readability.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically organized setter with documentation directly above it. Nesting: Flat, with no conditional or loop nesting. Clarity of intent: The method and parameter names clearly identify the dependency being assigned, although the documentation largely repeats them. Code length: Concise implementation; the Javadoc adds minor redundancy. Action granularity: A single assignment performs one action on one line. Reading flow: Natural progression from documentation to signature to assignment, with consistent formatting.
Run 2
Code Structure: A clearly organized setter with documentation, signature, and assignment. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The descriptive method and parameter names make the purpose explicit. Code length: Concise implementation, though the Javadoc largely repeats the method name. Action granularity: A single assignment performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom flow; the wrapped signature remains easy to follow.
Run 3
Code Structure: A logically organized setter with documentation immediately above it. Nesting: Flat, with only the method body. Clarity of intent: The method and parameter names clearly identify the dependency being assigned. Code length: Concise implementation, though the Javadoc repeats information evident from the signature. Action granularity: A single assignment on its own line. Reading flow: Natural progression from documentation to signature to assignment; wrapping the signature slightly interrupts an otherwise straightforward flow.