zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. yarg+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-28 22:40:15
This reminds me .NET's short lived Linq to SQL;

There was a talk at the time, but I can't find the video: http://jaoo.dk/aarhus2007/presentation/Using+LINQ+to+SQL+to+....

Basically, it was a way to cleanly plug SQL queries into C# code.

It used this sort of ordering (where the constraints come after the thing being constrained); it needed to do so for IntelliSense to work.

replies(3): >>dragon+T >>cybera+62 >>neonsu+Mn
2. dragon+T[view] [source] 2024-08-28 22:49:01
>>yarg+(OP)
> This reminds me .NET's short lived Linq to SQL;

"Short lived"? Its still alive, AFAIK, and the more popular newer thing for the same use case, Linq to Enntities, has the same salient features but (because it is tied to Entity Framework and not SQL Server specific) is more broadly usable.

replies(1): >>yarg+D3
3. cybera+62[view] [source] 2024-08-28 22:58:51
>>yarg+(OP)
"Short-lived"? LINQ is very much alive in the C# ecosystem.

And FROM-first syntax absolutely makes more sense, regardless of autocomplete. You should put the "what I need to select" after the "what I'm selecting from", in general.

replies(1): >>yarg+d3
◧◩
4. yarg+d3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:10:04
>>cybera+62
LINQ yes, but they killed off the component not long after introducing it.
replies(2): >>Bartje+LC >>jiggaw+Lj1
◧◩
5. yarg+D3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:14:47
>>dragon+T
It was in 3.5 only.

If they've replaced it with something else in the last decade and a half that does not mean that they didn't get rid of it, or that it wasn't short lived.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adon...

replies(2): >>pluspl+z4 >>LeonB+H4
◧◩◪
6. pluspl+z4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:24:44
>>yarg+D3
LINQ is not the same as LINQ-to-SQL. The former is a language feature, the latter a library (one of many) that uses that feature.
replies(1): >>yarg+F6
◧◩◪
7. LeonB+H4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:25:37
>>yarg+D3
Yeh. Linq to sql was a much more lightweight extension than EF, and was killed due to internal warring at MS.

Database people were investing a lot of time and energy on doing things “properly” with EF, and this scrappy little useful tool, linq to sql, was seen as a competitor.

replies(1): >>yarg+57
◧◩◪◨
8. yarg+F6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:43:37
>>pluspl+z4
Did you reply to the wrong person? Because I'm not the guy that didn't know that.
◧◩◪◨
9. yarg+57[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 23:48:29
>>LeonB+H4
I quite liked it in the 5 minutes it existed - it was just really easy to use.
10. neonsu+Mn[view] [source] 2024-08-29 02:33:31
>>yarg+(OP)
There is https://github.com/linq2db/linq2db which is LINQ to SQL reincarnated.

Of course there's EF Core too.

replies(1): >>WorldM+Iw1
◧◩◪
11. Bartje+LC[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 05:21:25
>>yarg+d3
Linq to sql still lives
◧◩◪
12. jiggaw+Lj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 12:51:11
>>yarg+d3
It was replaced by Entity Framework.
◧◩
13. WorldM+Iw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 14:18:40
>>neonsu+Mn
And NHibernate.Linq and Dapper.Extensions.Linq… Most ORMs in the ecosystem have at least one Linq support library, even if just a third-party extension.

Also, there are fun things that support Linq syntax for non-ORM uses, too, such as System.Reactive.Linq and LanguageExt: https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/wiki/How-to-deal-with...

[go to top]