LINQ To SQL On The Way Out

8 commentsWritten on October 31st, 2008 by
Categories: Entity Framework, Software Development

On October 20th, i wrote this in a comment:

i have zero interest in LINQ To Sql because i think it will ultimately be neglected (or even dropped) by Microsoft to increase adoption of Entity Framework

And there we go.

« Bulk Data Operations With NHibernate’s Stateless SessionsThe Upcoming NHibernate Posts »

This entry was posted on Friday, October 31st, 2008 at 08:32 and is filed under Entity Framework, Software Development. You can subscribe to any comments to this entry via RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • http://www.jphamilton.net J.P. Hamilton

    This is a smart move on their part. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard “why don’t we use LINQ to SQL instead of X, Y, Z”. Well, because it’s not robust enough is what I have been saying. EF will work for many people and that is where the effort should be directed. It would be nice, however, if MS released L2S on Codeplex.

  • http://davybrion.com Davy Brion

    I haven’t used L2S myself, but i’ve heard more positive things about it than i have heard about Entity Framework. I haven’t used either of them, but i do think that this is a pretty bad move… a year ago MS was showing off L2S every chance they got, a lot of people bought into it, and some of those people are now pretty much stuck with a technology that has no future anymore.

    If they did release L2S on Codeplex, at least it would still have a future. But it’s already been distributed with the standard .NET framework… have they ever open-sourced something after it had already been distributed as part of the .NET framework?

    Dropping L2S to increase adoption/support of EF is a typical MS move and it doesn’t really benefit anyone but themselves. They should’ve just done EF right the first time around instead of having a simple ‘ORM’ and a more complex ‘ORM’ competing with each other.

  • Jeremy Gray

    You need to go back and re-read that post. Just like Oren needs to go back and re-read that post. You’ll find _nothing_ in it that claims anything that you or Oren have claimed in your posts.

    I don’t give a damn about LINQ to SQL, so it is not as if I’m posting this comment in some kind of defensive fanboi mode, I just hate misinformation.

    Do you have anything else to substantiate your claims, seeing as the post you link to provides no support for them?

  • http://davybrion.com Davy Brion

    so far, all they’ve done is stress their ‘significant investment’ in Entity Framework and how they’re ‘willing to listen’ to L2S users… doesn’t exactly sound very convincing right? If it’s not dead yet, consider it on life support.

  • http://davybrion.com Davy Brion

    check out this comment in particular:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2008/10/29/update-on-linq-to-sql-and-linq-to-entities-roadmap.aspx#9027138

    “We would like to assure you that as we invest in the Entity Framework going forward, it is our priority to ensure it enables the same simple, lightweight usage scenario you currently have with LINQ to SQL and will continue to be fully compatible with newer MS technologies that are building on top of the Entity Framework down the road.”

  • http://davybrion.com Davy Brion
  • http://www.sqltutorials.net/ SQL Tutorials

    Does anyone know if there is another language or set of commands beside SQL for talking with databases?

    I’m working on a project and am doing some research thanks

  • http://www.sqltutorials.net/ SQL Tutorials

    You know, the thing about SQL is, that there is virtually nothing that can replace it.

    Does anyone know if a substitute exists for sql? I mean besides MS SQL and Oracle and all that jazz. Thanks.

Meta

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives