The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.

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

• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.892
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.
• In Linda, no separate merge process is needed for multiple client streams.claim0.874
  Linda's tuple space allows many-to-one communication without an extra merger.
• C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.finding0.864
• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.837
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• 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.concept0.787
  Foundational principle: Linda's orthogonality to base language and computation model is its core strength.
• In Parlog86, client messages must be ordered; there is no way to build an unordered stream.claim0.771
  Criticism that Parlog forces ordered communication where unordered is sufficient, adding complexity.
• 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.concept0.770
  Defines generative communication: the unique mechanism that enables uncoupled programming and persistent data objects.
• Linda unifies process creation, inter-process communication and synchronization within tuple-space operations.claim0.766
  Key advantage: the same operations handle all three aspects of parallel coordination.