Several attempts have been made to produce a (generally adopted) semantics for the generative communication coordination language Linda. However, none has been universally recognised as definitive. Therefore, there are various possible interpretations regarding the semantics of Linda operations. This report presents a survey of a variety of those attempts to produce a semantics for Linda. Also, an attempt is made to identify the areas of confusion which arise, and the possibilities which selecting different choices provide. 1 Introduction 1.1 Linda Informally, Linda [Gel85, CG89] is a coordination language which provides communication via tuple space, which is a global associative memory consisting of a bag (or multi-set) of tuples. Tuples are of two sorts: passive (tuple elements are data only) and active (tuple elements are processes). When the processes of an active tuple have completed, a passive tuple replaces it. The following operations operate on tuple space: out(t) takes a ...

This report sets out the results of an investigation into the distributed implementation of tuple spaces, hence Linda. There are numerous such schemes for implementing distributed tuple spaces, and a selection of these implementations are examined. It is observed that all the implementations have a great deal of similarities. These similarities form the basis for a generalised tuple space implementation, where specific implementations are formed by the appropriate selection of options for various choice points. 1 Introduction 1.1 Linda Linda[Gel85, CG89] is a coordination language providing communication via tuple space, which is a global associative memory consisting of a bag (or multi-set) of tuples. Tuples are of two sorts: passive (tuple elements are data only) and active (tuple elements are functions). When the functions of an active tuple have completed, a passive tuple replaces it. The following operations operate on tuple space: out(t) takes a (passive) tuple, t, (containing...

This paper describes the use of a particular type of computer simulator as a tool for teaching computer architecture. The Little Man Computer (LMC) paradigm was developed by Stuart Madnick of MIT in the 1960s and has stood the test of time as a conceptual device that helps students understand the basics of how a computer works. With the success of the LMC paradigm, LMC simulators have also proliferated. We compare and contrast the current crowd of LMC simulators highlighting visual features. We found unexpected insights since despite starting with the same paradigm with the same goals, each implementation is distinct with different strengths and weaknesses. It is our intention that interested educators will find this a useful starting point or useful reference for incorporating simulation into their courses.