Sample

Schnappinger/jsweet/def.dom.WebGLTexture

Human rating uses the original dataset scale.

DatasetSchnappinger

Human3.92

Lines6

Scores

Method	Score	Scale	Dataset rank (0–100)
Posnett	0.798	0–1; higher is more readable	86.0Δ 27.9
Scalabrino	0.901	0–1; higher is more readable	89.6Δ 31.5
Dorn	0.819	0–1; higher is more readable	87.8Δ 29.7
Mi	0.687	0–1; higher is more readable	80.2Δ 22.1
LLOC	2	Logical lines; fewer is more readable	94.6Δ 36.5
DeepSeek V4 Pro	17.67	0–20; mean of three runs	83.0Δ 24.9
GPT-6.1 Sol	18	0–20; mean of three runs	73.8Δ 15.7
BTTF	0.688	0–1; higher is more readable	77.9Δ 19.8
Human	3.92	1–4; original rating	58.1

Views

Source code

package def.dom; public class WebGLTexture extends WebGLObject { public static WebGLTexture prototype; public WebGLTexture(){} }

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

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.	4.572	−6.858
Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones.	92	−3.036
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.	6	+2.4

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 1.376 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.376) = 0.798.

Score	0.901

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.	47	+1.675
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.	0	−0.804
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.	7	+0.788
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.	5	−0.564
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.	1	+0.398
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.	5.792	−0.329
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.	0.068	+0.279

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.513 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.513) = 0.819.

Score	0.687

Score	2

Run 1

This code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with a simple package declaration, a single public class extending WebGLObject, a static prototype field, and a trivial constructor. Nesting is minimal, and intent is unambiguous. The code is concise, with one action per line, and follows a natural reading flow. Minor deductions for lack of documentation and potential redundancy in the empty constructor, but overall it is very clean and maintainable.

Run 2

The code is highly readable due to its simple, logical structure. It defines a class extending WebGLObject with a static prototype field and an empty constructor. Nesting is virtually nonexistent, the intent is clear from the naming and minimal structure, and the length is concise without unnecessary code. Each statement is on its own line, maintaining clear action granularity. The reading flow is natural, beginning with the package declaration, followed by the class definition, field, and constructor. Minor deductions for the empty constructor, which could be omitted, and the lack of any Javadoc or comments for context.

Run 3

The code is highly readable due to its simplicity and clean structure. It follows standard Java conventions with a clear package declaration, a single public class extending a parent, and a minimal constructor. There is no deep nesting or complex logic, making the intent obvious. The code is concise and each action is on its own line. The only minor deductions are the lack of any documentation or comments explaining the purpose of the prototype field or the class itself, and the empty constructor could be omitted entirely. Overall, the code is almost trivial to understand, scoring well on all criteria except for a slight lack of explanatory context.

Run 1

Code Structure: The package declaration and small class are logically organized. Nesting: Only a single class level with an empty constructor, so nesting is minimal. Clarity of intent: The class name and inheritance clearly identify a WebGL texture type, though the purpose of the public static prototype field is not explained. Code length: Very concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each declaration is on its own line. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom flow, but a blank line after the package declaration and conventional spacing in the constructor would improve readability.

Run 2

Code Structure: The package declaration and small class are logically organized. Nesting: There is no unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: The class name and inheritance clearly identify a WebGL texture type, though the public static prototype field and empty constructor lack explanatory context. Code length: The code is concise, with no unnecessary implementation. Action granularity: Each declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: The code reads naturally from package to class to members, but a blank line after the package declaration and conventional spacing in the constructor would improve presentation.

Run 3

Code Structure: Logically organized as a small class with a field and constructor. Nesting: Minimal, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: The class name and inheritance clearly identify a WebGL texture type, although the purpose of the public static prototype field is not explained. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary code. Action granularity: Each declaration occupies its own line; the empty constructor contains no actions. Reading flow: Natural package-to-class-to-members progression, though missing blank lines and tight constructor brace spacing slightly reduce readability.