Source code
public class LookAndSay {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String currentTerm = "1";
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
System.out.println(currentTerm);
currentTerm = getNextTerm(currentTerm);
}
}
private static String getNextTerm(String term) {
StringBuilder nextTerm = new StringBuilder();
char currentChar = term.charAt(0);
int count = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < term.length(); i++) {
if (term.charAt(i) == currentChar) {
count++;
} else {
nextTerm.append(count).append(currentChar);
currentChar = term.charAt(i);
count = 1;
}
}
nextTerm.append(count).append(currentChar);
return nextTerm.toString();
}
}
Run 1
The code is highly readable. It has a clear structure with separate methods for generating and printing terms. Nesting is minimal, with only one level inside the loops. Intent is clear: generate the Look-and-Say sequence. The `getNextTerm` method is concise and follows a straightforward algorithm. Each line performs a single logical action, and the flow from initial term through iteration to output is natural. Minor improvements could include adding comments or constants, but overall this is excellent.
Run 2
The code is well-structured with a clear separation of concerns: main handles iteration and output while getNextTerm implements the look-and-say logic. Nesting is minimal with only one level inside the loop. Variable names are descriptive, and the algorithm is concise without unnecessary verbosity. Each line performs a single logical action, promoting readability. The reading flow follows a natural progression from initialization through counting to appending results. The only minor deduction is the slight duplication in appending the final count/character sequence, which could be slightly more elegant but doesn't harm clarity.
Run 3
The code is well-structured, with a clear separation between the main loop and the term-generation logic. Nesting is minimal, with only two levels (loop and if-else). Intent is obvious from method and variable names. The code is concise and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Each line performs a single logical action, enhancing readability. The reading flow follows a natural progression: initialize, loop, print, update, then compute next term. The getNextTerm method is straightforward, though it could benefit from a brief comment explaining the look-and-say rule for newcomers. Overall, this is highly readable code.
Run 1
Code Structure: Clear separation between sequence output and next-term generation. Nesting: Shallow, with only an if/else inside a loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class, method, and variable names make the look-and-say algorithm easy to understand; the hardcoded iteration count is a minor clarity issue. Code length: Concise without unnecessary abstractions or repetition. Action granularity: Each line generally performs one logical action; chained appends naturally represent adding a count-character pair. Reading flow: Initialization, character grouping, final-group handling, and return follow a natural sequence. The nonempty-input assumption in getNextTerm is implicit, slightly reducing clarity.
Run 2
Code Structure: Clean separation between sequence generation in main and term construction in getNextTerm. Nesting: Shallow, with only an if/else inside a loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class, method, and variable names make the look-and-say algorithm easy to understand; the fixed iteration count of 20 is unexplained. Code length: Concise without sacrificing clarity or introducing unnecessary abstractions. Action granularity: Most lines perform one action; chained append calls naturally express a count-character pair. Reading flow: Initialization, character counting, group emission, and final-group handling follow a logical order. A brief explanation of the final append and a named iteration constant would offer minor readability improvements.
Run 3
Code Structure: Clean separation between sequence generation in main and term construction in getNextTerm. Nesting: Shallow, with only an if/else inside a loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class, method, and variable names make the look-and-say algorithm easy to understand; the unexplained iteration limit of 20 is a minor weakness. Code length: Concise without sacrificing clarity. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; chained append calls express a cohesive count-character pair. Reading flow: Natural progression from initialization through character counting, group emission, and final return. Overall, highly readable with only minor opportunities to clarify the iteration limit.