Linda wins the freedom to coexist peacefully with any number of base languages and computing models.

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

• Linda is a simpler, more powerful and more elegant model than any of these four alternatives (message-passing, concurrent objects, logic languages, functional).claim0.812
  The central thesis of the paper, stated explicitly in the introduction.
• Linda programming language exemplifies bringing craft principles into computational systems.claim0.798
• Linda can express fine-grained wavefront computations cleanly; future implementations on next-generation machines can support them efficiently.hypothesis0.792
• Linda achieves scalable performance on distributed-memory machines.claim0.791
  Supported by reported speedup through 64 nodes on iPSC/2.
• Linda is a model of process creation and coordination that is orthogonal to the base language in which it’s embedded.quote0.778
  Load-bearing definition of Linda's relation to the base language.
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.774
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• Linda runs on shared-memory (Encore Multimax, Sequent Balance/Symmetry, Alliant FX/8), distributed-memory (Intel iPSC/2, S/Net), and LAN (Vax/VMS) environments.finding0.768
  Lists the concrete systems on which Linda had been implemented.
• 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.quote0.767
  Concise statement of Linda's key design philosophy.