Source code
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.math.*;
class SquarePerimeter {
/**
* * Write a function to find the perimeter of a square.
*
* > squarePerimeter(10)
* 40
* > squarePerimeter(5)
* 20
* > squarePerimeter(4)
* 16
*/
public static int squarePerimeter(int a) {
int b = a;
int c = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
c += b;
int d = b - 1;
b = d + 1;
}
return c;
}
}
Run 1
The code is logically organized and the purpose is clear, but the implementation is unnecessarily convoluted. The perimeter of a square can be computed directly as 4 * a, yet the code uses a loop with redundant operations (e.g., int d = b - 1; b = d + 1;). This hurts action granularity and reading flow by introducing irrelevant steps. Nesting is shallow and indentation is fine, but the loop adds cognitive load without value. Code length is excessive for the simple task. Clarity of intent is partially obscured by the odd loop and unnecessary variables (int b, int c). Overall, the code is readable in structure but poorly designed for its purpose.
Run 2
The code has a clear method name and imports, but the logic is unnecessarily convoluted. The loop adds the same side length four times, using an extra variable and subtraction/addition that serves no purpose. This obscures the intent of calculating a square's perimeter. The code is flat and concise, but the redundant operations reduce clarity and action granularity. Overall, the structure is logical but the implementation makes the simple formula (4 * a) hard to recognize.
Run 3
The code has a clear class and method structure, but the implementation is unnecessarily convoluted. The method squarePerimeter is intended to return the perimeter of a square, which should simply be 4 * a. Instead, it introduces variables b and c, and uses a loop that adds b to c four times, with b being redundantly decremented then incremented back (d = b - 1; b = d + 1). This adds unnecessary length and obscures intent. While the indentation is flat and one action per line is mostly followed, the reading flow is hindered by these redundant operations. Clarity of intent is low because the algorithm does not directly express the mathematical relationship. The structure is not tangled, but the code length is longer than needed and the action granularity is sometimes multiple operations per line (though mostly one per line). Overall, it is readable but not efficient or clear.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class and method are logically organized, but redundant variables and calculations obscure a simple operation. Nesting: A single loop keeps nesting shallow. Clarity of intent: The method name and documentation clearly state the purpose, but names a, b, c, and d provide little meaning, and modifying b only to restore its value is confusing. Code length: The implementation is unnecessarily long compared with returning 4 * a; wildcard imports are also unused. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: The overall sequence is straightforward, but the pointless subtraction and addition interrupt comprehension.
Run 2
Code Structure: A single, logically organized method, but redundant assignments and arithmetic obscure a simple calculation. Nesting: Shallow, with only one loop. Clarity of intent: The class name, method name, and examples clearly identify the purpose, but variable names a, b, c, and d are uninformative, and changing then restoring b is misleading. Code length: Unnecessarily long for an operation expressible as return 4 * a; unused wildcard imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, making individual steps easy to follow. Reading flow: The method proceeds naturally from initialization to iteration to return, but the pointless manipulation of b interrupts comprehension.
Run 3
Code Structure: The single class and method are logically organized, but redundant calculations obscure a simple operation. Nesting: Only one loop is present, keeping nesting shallow. Clarity of intent: The class name, method name, and examples clearly identify the purpose, but variable names a, b, c, and d are uninformative, and modifying then restoring b is confusing. Code length: The implementation is unnecessarily long; returning 4 * a would express the calculation directly. Unused wildcard imports add clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, making individual lines easy to parse. Reading flow: The overall sequence is straightforward, but the pointless subtraction and addition interrupt the flow and require readers to verify that b remains unchanged.