C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.

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

• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.886
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.864
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• In Linda, no separate merge process is needed for multiple client streams.claim0.818
  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.concept0.791
  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).claim0.769
  The central thesis of the paper, stated explicitly in the introduction.
• 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.quote0.764
  Concise statement of Linda's key design philosophy.
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.762
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• Linda achieves scalable performance on distributed-memory machines.claim0.761
  Supported by reported speedup through 64 nodes on iPSC/2.