I do not want to get overly philosophical here, but you may want to question yourself what is the purpose of science papers. Science papers aim to teach things that are true. The more general the truth is, the harder is to prove (and to teach) it. So people tend to be specific: "If you have this situation A and want to achieve this result Z you can do X (considering B,C,D)." This union of an "algorithm" with the conditions for its execution is called a method. Is something guaranteed to happen (up to a certain confidence). Even if the phenomenon happened 100 times of 100 experiments, you just tested 100 times. Be aware to not say you have proved things, you have at best shown strong evidence for something.
What you were describing were reports. Maybe technical reports, as they may include code, benchmarks or some analysis. "I've done A and B and achieved C". It could be by pure luck. It could be because you are an awesome programmer. It could be because you have an impressive hardware. But then someone would read your paper in another situation (with a different programming language, with a different hardware or with some slightly different problem definition) and your solution wouldn't work. But maybe if you had written how you came up with those ideas in a systematic way, the reader would understand what he/she has to change in your line of thoughts to achieve the same result. Imagine it as an engineering brainstorm with future readers: put diagrams, put code, put interesting sources. Explain it to your peers as you would do in your company (but please be formal).
Systematic ways of idea generation are something on the line of "I've enumerated all possibilities and made a small program for each one, then showed that I can compose these programs...", "I've read this paper and changed it in this part"... It has to be something that the reader could reproduce itself, it can't be "I just came with this idea" or "I invented this algorithm".
So the first question you have to ask, for each result, is How?. Show your thesis to freshmen. If they understand perfectly how you have done it, it usually is good to go.
For a bachelor thesis, usually this is sufficient.
Remember, the bachelor thesis is about generating knowledge, not results. It shows that you are not a code artisan, but a computer scientist.
I will continue the discussion because you may find it useful.
When you are interested in actual science, How? isn't enough. The second level is Why does it happen? Not only you have to describe precisely what you have done and the steps of what you've done, but you have to explain why it happened and why it will continue to happen (or what are the conditions for it to continue happening).
This usually encompass a Master thesis.
To achieve a Phd, you will be asked not only how, not only why, but When?. When did someone said that? If the answer is never, congratulations, you have made a new contribution to science. Of course you will have to show (in a systematic way) how you obtained the result of knowing that no one has ever reported your thesis.