The Parlog86 solution to dining philosophers consists of 70 lines of code as presented in Ringwood (1988).

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

• Linda dining philosophers solution uses in/out as counting semaphores; Parlog requires 70 lines across 6 processes with supporting diagrams.finding0.820
• 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.quote0.809
  From Ringwood (1988), used by Carriero and Gelernter to frame the importance of the dining philosophers example.
• When a problem has a simple solution, a useful system will give programmers access to the simple solution; Parlog forces complex solutions to simple problems.claim0.759
  Critique that Parlog's abstraction level is too high and restrictive.
• Alexander is the load-bearing concept across the graph; the 15 Properties paper is the native taste position for About Blank.claim0.732
• The Parlog86 merge process code depends on the number of streams, making it less flexible than Linda for multiple clients.claim0.725
  Pointing out that Parlog requires explicit, stream-count-dependent merging code.
• Alexander jettisons many arguments; he rejects the computers and mathematics used in Notes a year after its publication.claim0.725
  Observation of Alexander's pattern of self-rejection.
• Dining Philosophers Problemconcept0.723
  A classic concurrency benchmark problem used to test expressivity of parallel programming primitives; second main example for Parlog-Linda comparison.
• The Linda code is insensitive to the number of clients, whereas Parlog requires a merge process that depends on the count.claim0.721
  Demonstrates flexibility advantage.