Linda dining philosophers solution uses in/out as counting semaphores; Parlog requires 70 lines across 6 processes with supporting diagrams.

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

• The Parlog86 solution to dining philosophers consists of 70 lines of code as presented in Ringwood (1988).finding0.820
  Quantitative observation used to support the claim that Parlog solution is complex.
• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.764
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.
• It is easy to express a wavefront computation in Linda: we use eval to create one process for each element, and rd to read the preceding counter-diagonal.claim0.744
  Illustrates how live data structures are simply expressed.
• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.738
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• dining philosophers is a benchmark of the expressive power of new primitives of concurrent programming and stands as a challenge to proposers of these languages.quote0.734
  From Ringwood (1988), used by Carriero and Gelernter to frame the importance of the dining philosophers example.
• C-Linda client-server code is insensitive to number of clients; Parlog version requires explicit merge process dependent on client count.finding0.731
• C-Linda code is easier to understand than the Parlog86 version [for the client-server problem].claim0.721
  Subjective but argued comparison.
• Linda applications show good speedup through 64 nodes on Encore Multimax and Sequent Balance.finding0.721