Comments on: LINQ To SQL On The Way Out http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/ Trying to walk that thin line between intelligence and ignorance Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:01:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: SQL Tutorials http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-13906 SQL Tutorials Fri, 01 May 2009 02:10:44 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-13906 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. 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.

]]> By: SQL Tutorials http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-13905 SQL Tutorials Fri, 01 May 2009 02:03:55 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-13905 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 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

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4502 Davy Brion Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:21:15 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4502 or this: http://codebetter.com/blogs/david.hayden/archive/2008/10/31/linq-to-sql-is-dead-read-between-the-lines.aspx or this:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/david.hayden/archive/2008/10/31/linq-to-sql-is-dead-read-between-the-lines.aspx

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4501 Davy Brion Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:18:42 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4501 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." 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.”

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4499 Davy Brion Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:12:54 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4499 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeremy Gray http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4473 Jeremy Gray Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:43:57 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4473 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? 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?

]]> By: Davy Brion http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4462 Davy Brion Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:01:58 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4462 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. 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.

]]> By: J.P. Hamilton http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/linq-to-sql-on-the-way-out/comment-page-1/#comment-4461 J.P. Hamilton Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:50:48 +0000 http://davybrion.com/blog/?p=559#comment-4461 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. 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.

]]>