The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.

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.claim0.892
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.859
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• In Linda, no separate merge process is needed for multiple client streams.claim0.832
  Linda's tuple space allows many-to-one communication without an extra merger.
• 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.concept0.809
  Foundational principle: Linda's orthogonality to base language and computation model is its core strength.
• Linda is a simpler, more powerful and more elegant model than any of these four alternatives (message-passing, concurrent objects, logic languages, functional).claim0.802
  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.claim0.793
  Overall comparison conclusion against concurrent logic.
• The fact that senders in Linda needn’t know anything about receivers and vice versa is central to the language. It promotes what we call an uncoupled programming style.quote0.785
  Concise statement of Linda's key design philosophy.
• Linda is a model of process creation and coordination that is orthogonal to the base language in which it’s embedded.quote0.784
  Load-bearing definition of Linda's relation to the base language.