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.

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).finding0.809
  Quantitative observation used to support the claim that Parlog solution is complex.
• Dining Philosophers Problemconcept0.791
  A classic concurrency benchmark problem used to test expressivity of parallel programming primitives; second main example for Parlog-Linda comparison.
• Linda dining philosophers solution uses in/out as counting semaphores; Parlog requires 70 lines across 6 processes with supporting diagrams.finding0.734
• The strengths of all three models (concurrent OOP, logic, functional) are irrelevant to parallelism, and generally unhelpful in dealing with process creation and coordination.claim0.722
  Assertion that the popular models add nothing to parallel programming.
• Parallel programming needn't be terribly difficult, but 'thinking in simultaneities' as in message-passing is calculated to make it difficult.claim0.721
  Asserts that Linda's uncoupled style reduces cognitive load.
• Developing principled sentience frameworks is an existential requirement for humanity as it encounters diverse intelligences.claim0.721
• Computation is a game of empowerment and, therefore, the investment in opening the design process remains a critical challenge for contemporary architecture.claim0.718
  Final normative claim: computation’s nature as a game demands architectural openness, a challenge yet to be met.
• Object-oriented programming is powerful and attractive, but irrelevant to parallelism.claim0.714
  Claim that OOP per se does not solve any parallel programming problems.