Pure functional languages cannot be the whole story for parallel programming because they fail to provide needed expressivity.

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

• Explicitly parallel programs are not inherently harder to design or understand than functional specifications.claim0.853
  C-Linda DNA comparison is comparable in length and clarity to Crystal; pragmatic runtime granularity control outweighs compiler optimization ideals.
• Parallel programming needn't be terribly difficult, but 'thinking in simultaneities' as in message-passing is calculated to make it difficult.claim0.830
  Asserts that Linda's uncoupled style reduces cognitive load.
• Pure Functional Programmingframework0.808
  A paradigm relying on recursion equations without assignment; Linda authors compare it on DNA sequence similarity problem.
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.796
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• 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.quote0.794
  From Turner (1982), cited to represent the functional programming community's view and then refuted.
• Parallel sub-tasks within skills and across skill families should produce parallel outputs for legibility.claim0.793
• Object-oriented programming is powerful and attractive, but irrelevant to parallelism.claim0.792
  Claim that OOP per se does not solve any parallel programming problems.
• 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.claim0.785
  Introduction, motivating the proposal.