In Parlog86, client messages must be ordered; there is no way to build an unordered stream.

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

• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.771
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.763
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.
• C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.finding0.747
• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.738
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• If two processes need to communicate, they don't exchange messages or share a variable; instead, the data producing process generates a new data object and sets it adrift in tuple space.concept0.738
  Defines generative communication: the unique mechanism that enables uncoupled programming and persistent data objects.
• What are the chances that a text will be left without interference if it attempts to stand alone?question0.734
• When a problem has a simple solution, a useful system will give programmers access to the simple solution; Parlog forces complex solutions to simple problems.claim0.733
  Critique that Parlog's abstraction level is too high and restrictive.
• Elephant source programs may not need data structures, because they can refer directly to the past.claim0.723
  Third abstract claim.