C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.finding0.886
• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.859
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.
• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.837
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• Linda is a simpler, more powerful and more elegant model than any of these four alternatives (message-passing, concurrent objects, logic languages, functional).claim0.806
  The central thesis of the paper, stated explicitly in the introduction.
• Linda is a more practical and a more elegant alternative to concurrent logic programming.claim0.792
  Overall comparison conclusion against concurrent logic.
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.785
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• The Linda model doesn't care how the multiple execution threads in a Linda program compute what they compute; it deals only with how these execution threads are created and organized into a coherent program.concept0.784
  Foundational principle: Linda's orthogonality to base language and computation model is its core strength.
• C-Linda DNA sequence comparison program is slightly longer than the Crystal version.finding0.767
  Length comparison of the two programs shown in Figure 3.