copycat82 is a subset of SARA

SARA (197x,198x) was already more advanced than copycat82, in every way, although SARA existed several years earlier, too. The plagiarism of copycat82 is obvious, along with its immense faultiness, and its being not verifiable.

SARA is a software system (after UCLA graphs), with a well-defined methodology. If these extras were truncated, it is copycat82.

The SARA-similarities, in its graphs, may take attention, but it is only kindergarten-grade plagiarism. SARA methodology and software, were with their policies and mechanisms. SARA is known as a software system, a module introduction/choice system, etc. But copycat82 is not there, at all.

In SARA, the control-nodes vs. SARA SL modules. are different, although copycat82 does ignore that. Such ignorance, along with the plagiarism of copycat82, make copycat82 worthless. It is worse than trivial. (The data is collapsed, too, in its so-called "single" graph.)

Or, equivalently, if the well-isolated information (shared-data, and i/o control macros), of a SARA SL module-interface socket, is turned inside-out, it is copycat82. The copycat82 vagueness is even worse than this, as it collapses all data-items, to associate with the "node/module," instead of the socket/path where it is. If multiple sockets exist to a module, the copycat82's collapsed net is vague.

SARA nodes may ask questions, or list PL/I programs. That was a ready language in the multics system. The examples of copycat82, with (pseudo-Pascal?) program-rectangles, were obviously similar. In many cases, that is a single "if" statement.

SARA has input/output control logic, between the arcs at the entrance and/or exit of a node, which copycat82 attempts to imitate, but cannot implement even such trivial macros. The absurd macro-gate problems of copycat82 may leave the (yeah-sayer) jury without explanations, along with the other such problems.

copycat82 is also similar to the SARA CFA strategy, when it paints the graphs with UCLA input/output operators, and next, attempts to verify as Petri nets. But the (false) assumption of separately-verifiable macros, suggests copycat82 assumes VD78 well-formed subnets (or, Petri net non-primitive transitions), rather than recognize the needs of a SARA SL to SARA CFA transformation.

The fake claim of copycat82, about abstract data types is only another negative point.

Conclusion: copycat82 is stuck as a subset of prior art

copycat82 is an attempt to collapse the prior art without an idea, of itself. It is stuck as a subset of each of them, when its plagiarism leads to a lot of problems.

It represents imitative of E-nets, paints and gives examples imitative of SARA, and attempts to verify imitative of VD78. And when we compare with SARA CFA, copycat82 also lacks the extras of SARA CFA. e.g: macro-expansion (without which copycat82 is absurd to verify), and without any control-states-reduction.