It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.

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

• Pure functional languages cannot be the whole story for parallel programming because they fail to provide needed expressivity.claim0.796
  Argument that recursion equations are inappropriate for many important parallel programs.
• Linda is a simpler, more powerful and more elegant model than any of these four alternatives (message-passing, concurrent objects, logic languages, functional).claim0.786
  The central thesis of the paper, stated explicitly in the introduction.
• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.785
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• a basic difficulty [of non-functional languages] is that they are very long winded, in terms of the amount one has to write to achieve a given effect.quote0.783
  From Turner (1982), cited to represent the functional programming community's view and then refuted.
• It has long been said that programming languages need more of the features of natural language, but it has not been clear what the desirable features are.claim0.782
  Introduction, motivating the proposal.
• Linda programming language exemplifies bringing craft principles into computational systems.claim0.779
• Linda wins the freedom to coexist peacefully with any number of base languages and computing models.concept0.774
  Load-bearing statement on Linda's orthogonal design principle: it doesn't meddle in computation, only coordination.
• Linda can express fine-grained wavefront computations cleanly; future implementations on next-generation machines can support them efficiently.hypothesis0.773