C-Linda DNA sequence comparison program is slightly longer than the Crystal version.

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].claim0.767
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.743
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.
• DNA Sequence Comparison Problemconcept0.736
• C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.finding0.733
• It is impossible for us to accept the claim that functional languages are necessarily higher-level than C-Linda.claim0.726
  Critique of the functional-level argument based on mental models.
• Linda is a more practical and a more elegant alternative to concurrent logic programming.claim0.718
  Overall comparison conclusion against concurrent logic.
• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.716
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• Linda is a simpler, more powerful and more elegant model than any of these four alternatives (message-passing, concurrent objects, logic languages, functional).claim0.710
  The central thesis of the paper, stated explicitly in the introduction.