Sample
int-7cd1948d9f61-I10
Remove about 40% of line-break groups while retaining structure
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.749 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.22 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.013 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 50 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 3.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 11 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.468 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 3071.679 | −101.365 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 121 | +48.4 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.679 | −7.018 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -51.113 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-51.113) = 0.
| Score | 0.749 |
|---|
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. | 175.967 | −3.788 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 122 | −3.283 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 175.967 | +2.035 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 66 | +1.546 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 120.876 | +1.28 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.048 | +0.48 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.263 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.263) = 0.22.
| Score | 0.013 |
|---|
| Score | 50 |
|---|
Run 1
This code has severe readability issues. The structure is extremely tangled—multiple statements are crammed onto single lines, imports and class-level code share lines, and listener logic is deeply nested with inline anonymous inner classes. Nesting is excessive: inside the `operationComplete` listener, there is an `if` block containing an anonymous `Runnable` with another method call to `operationComplete0`, all compressed together. Clarity of intent is poor because whitespace and line breaks are missing, making it difficult to parse method boundaries and logic flow. Code length is not excessive, but compression to single lines destroys readability. Action granularity is often several actions per line, such as incrementing a counter, checking future success, and setting cause all in one line. Reading flow is highly unnatural—readers must decrypt dense lines instead of following a structured, vertically aligned sequence. Despite Javadocs being present, they are visually embedded with code in ways that further obscure separation.
Run 2
The code has severe readability issues. Structure is tangled: numerous methods are crammed onto single lines alongside field declarations, violating action granularity. Nesting is problematic — the anonymous listener contains nested conditionals and an inner anonymous Runnable, obscuring logic. Intent is partially documented via Javadoc, but the implementation's formatting undermines clarity. Code length is bloated by compression artifacts (multiple statements per line). Reading flow is disorganized; declarations, methods, and logic run together without visual separation. While method names are descriptive, the formatting makes scanning difficult. The mixed indentation styles and lack of consistent line breaks significantly reduce maintainability despite the underlying logic being relatively straightforward.
Run 3
The code suffers from severe formatting and structural problems. Multiple statements are crammed onto single lines, making it difficult to parse the logic. The inner anonymous listener class is particularly problematic, with nested method definitions and conditionals on the same lines, obscuring the flow of control. While the class has a clear purpose (combining futures) and basic naming is acceptable, the implementation details are obscured by poor layout. The code violates most readability principles: no consistent line breaks, multiple actions per line, deeply nested anonymous inner classes, and confusing reading flow. The JavaDoc is present but the code itself appears as if it was auto-minified, making it unnecessarily difficult to read and maintain.
Run 1
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into small methods, but compressed declarations and method boundaries obscure the organization. Nesting: Most control flow is shallow; the anonymous listener containing an anonymous Runnable adds localized complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive Javadoc clearly explain aggregation, failure handling, and thread constraints. Code length: Implementation methods are concise, though repeated documentation and deprecated overloads increase reading volume. Action granularity: Multiple declarations, checks, increments, and calls frequently share a line, making individual operations harder to distinguish. Reading flow: Inconsistent indentation, inline annotations, crowded braces, and adjacent method definitions repeatedly interrupt otherwise natural control flow. Overall, the underlying design is understandable, but poor formatting substantially reduces readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into methods, but compressed declarations and merged method boundaries obscure that organization. Nesting: Most methods are shallow; the listener's anonymous Runnable introduces moderate nesting that cramped formatting makes harder to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough Javadoc clearly explain aggregation, failure handling, and event-loop constraints. Code length: Implementation methods are concise, although extensive, somewhat repetitive documentation increases reading length. Action granularity: Multiple declarations, checks, updates, and control statements frequently share a line, reducing readability. Reading flow: Inconsistent indentation, inline annotations, crowded braces, and comments attached to closing braces interrupt otherwise logical progression. The underlying design is understandable, but formatting significantly increases the effort required to trace execution.
Run 3
Code Structure: Responsibilities are logically separated into adding futures, finishing aggregation, handling completion, and validation, but compressed formatting obscures method boundaries. Nesting: Generally shallow, though nested anonymous listener and Runnable implementations make completion handling harder to scan. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation clearly explain aggregation behavior and threading requirements. Code length: Implementation methods are concise; documentation is lengthy but useful, and deprecated overloads add some overhead. Action granularity: Multiple declarations, checks, updates, and control statements share lines, substantially reducing readability. Reading flow: Inconsistent brace placement, inline annotations, and methods joined to closing braces interrupt natural top-to-bottom reading. Overall, clear design and documentation are undermined by poor formatting.