Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:13:43 -0600, Stephen Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: A good comparison of what the EF is to be and what Linq already is. If only there were an easy-to-use ORM for .Net that really worked well with OLE DB data sources like VFP. They're all centered round SQL Server, Oracle and so on. -- Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:13:43 -0600, Stephen Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: A good comparison of what the EF is to be and what Linq already is. If only there were an easy-to-use ORM for .Net that really worked well with OLE DB data sources like VFP. They're all centered round SQL Server, Oracle and so on. -- - ORM, O/RM, and O/R mapping you mean? Linq is just SQL Server based for now. Have you thought of making the mapper yourself? I see the hardest point in data mistypes between C# or VB interacting with the backend. Like the FP Date type. Linq did a fantastic job in this area. All you had to do was point the EntityData object at a db, and then add the tables, views and SPs for it. Linq wired up all the data objects for them instead of you having to do that. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 05:37:54 -0600, Stephen Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Have you thought of making the mapper yourself? I thought about doing one for nHibernate (or was it Wilson OR?) but who's got the time :) -- Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Stephen Russell wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:13:43 -0600, Stephen Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: A good comparison of what the EF is to be and what Linq already is. If only there were an easy-to-use ORM for .Net that really worked well with OLE DB data sources like VFP. They're all centered round SQL Server, Oracle and so on. -- - ORM, O/RM, and O/R mapping you mean? Linq is just SQL Server based for now. Have you thought of making the mapper yourself? I see the hardest point in data mistypes between C# or VB interacting with the backend. Like the FP Date type. Linq did a fantastic job in this area. All you had to do was point the EntityData object at a db, and then add the tables, views and SPs for it. Linq wired up all the data objects for them instead of you having to do that. Tell me again why they couldn't make it easy to link the datasets to the objects like Foxpro made it easy?? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:27 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: Tell me again why they couldn't make it easy to link the datasets to the objects like Foxpro made it easy?? Because they didn't want to make it look like Dabo? ;-) -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Ed Leafe wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:27 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: Tell me again why they couldn't make it easy to link the datasets to the objects like Foxpro made it easy?? Because they didn't want to make it look like Dabo? ;-) LOL! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account Tell me again why they couldn't make it easy to link the datasets to the objects like Foxpro made it easy?? -- Datasets were the first attempt in .Net 1.3, but not good enough. Objects that became containers of containers work better and are easily morphed to XML when needed. Think of 2.0 and newer. This is pretty straight forward. I see this as code that will run in the middle and pass back the ListT ListContacts contacts = Contacts.SampleData(); // pull of data no param var q = from c in contacts where c.DateOfBirth.AddYears(35) DateTime.Now orderby c.DateOfBirth descending select c.FirstName + + c.LastName + b. + c.DateOfBirth.ToString(dd-MMM-).ToList(); return q; // return any contact older than 35. But on the front end you could requery the list again and perhaps set an orderby on the name? -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stephen Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Tracy Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I attended a .NET meeting in Asheville, NC last month. Developer Centric Features of SQL Server 2008 by Kevin Boles who is an independent SQL Consultant and SQL Server expert as well as a SQL MVP. It's focus was mainly on SQL. One of the big points Kevin gave was using LINQ against Stored Procedures, and not letting it dynamically get data from the SQL server. He mentioned this was a large performance hit when it is dynamically getting the data. - A good comparison of what the EF is to be and what Linq already is. http://tinyurl.com/6o2gyn Good read on the hype vs the reality. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Im just getting a handle on .NET and started looking at LINQ. didnt like it so glad I can ignore it. Then again I looked at EF. Dont understand it so that doesnt sound like an advantage either. At 08:27 PM 4/11/2008, you wrote: In terms of take-up, Linq is still a minnow - it's no COM or OLEDB. In that sense deprecating it has less of an impact even though it's exasperating to have to evaluate a whole new ball of wax in the Entity Framework. They need to rein themselves in and get a bit of focus instead of trying to cover all the bases. -- Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
In terms of take-up, Linq is still a minnow - it's no COM or OLEDB. In that sense deprecating it has less of an impact even though it's exasperating to have to evaluate a whole new ball of wax in the Entity Framework. They need to rein themselves in and get a bit of focus instead of trying to cover all the bases. -- Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Should whatever they decide on not be in the CLR. After all I thought that was the point of the of it that the runtimes were on all windows machines. Good laugh time Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of geoff Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP? Im just getting a handle on .NET and started looking at LINQ. didnt like it so glad I can ignore it. Then again I looked at EF. Dont understand it so that doesnt sound like an advantage either. At 08:27 PM 4/11/2008, you wrote: In terms of take-up, Linq is still a minnow - it's no COM or OLEDB. In that sense deprecating it has less of an impact even though it's exasperating to have to evaluate a whole new ball of wax in the Entity Framework. They need to rein themselves in and get a bit of focus instead of trying to cover all the bases. -- Alan Bourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
I attended a .NET meeting in Asheville, NC last month. Developer Centric Features of SQL Server 2008 by Kevin Boles who is an independent SQL Consultant and SQL Server expert as well as a SQL MVP. It's focus was mainly on SQL. One of the big points Kevin gave was using LINQ against Stored Procedures, and not letting it dynamically get data from the SQL server. He mentioned this was a large performance hit when it is dynamically getting the data. Tracy ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Tracy Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I attended a .NET meeting in Asheville, NC last month. Developer Centric Features of SQL Server 2008 by Kevin Boles who is an independent SQL Consultant and SQL Server expert as well as a SQL MVP. It's focus was mainly on SQL. One of the big points Kevin gave was using LINQ against Stored Procedures, and not letting it dynamically get data from the SQL server. He mentioned this was a large performance hit when it is dynamically getting the data. - It is generating a SP like syntax of it's own. The only problem I found with Linq to SQL was identical named columns in tables that you had a difficult time pulling it's contents. We had 2 tables with very similar schema. Guid, DisplayName, other cols that fit the Carrier or the shipping Method for teh carriers. So when I wanted to join the tables, and get both the DispalyName columns back it had an issue. That bug was reported up to MS as will be fixed in the next patch that they put out. Now Linq to Objects is fantastic and most of you won't see it's benefit because you hold data in local cursors. Now the ability to mix Linq to XML and Linq to SQL in a query is killer. This is what will drive Linq into the mainstream. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Evolution is good, although you might not think so if your name were T. Rex. Change is good if it progresses in the right direction, but change for change sake (this year , with tailfins!) is just bilking the customer without delivering real value. It's not bad that MSFT innovates by trying new things. It's bad because they declare that the One True Direction before it should be out of beta, abandons support for an older, working, mature technology, and then repeats the process in a year or two. http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~MicrosoftBandWagon~SoftwareEng -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Kaye Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NF] LINQ - RIP? From the Database Weekly newsletter from SQLServerCentral.com... Editorial - Dead LINQ - Database Weekly (Nov 3, 2008) There might be lots of DBAs holding their hands up in thanks over the news that LINQ- SQL might be dead. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
[NF] LINQ - RIP?
From the Database Weekly newsletter from SQLServerCentral.com... Editorial - Dead LINQ - Database Weekly (Nov 3, 2008) There might be lots of DBAs holding their hands up in thanks over the news that LINQ- SQL might be dead. I saw a number of blog posts that referred to this note from the ADO.NET team about the LINQ roadmap clarification. In the post, the team that works on this aspect of LINQ doesn't come out and say that LINQ to SQL is dead, but they do mention that the Entity Framework will be their recommended method of getting relational data back through ADO to your application. They do mention that after this release of the .NET Framework 4.0 they will continue to listen to customers' feedback about LINQ to SQL and evolve the product. You can read into this a few ways. One is that they don't want to admit it's a failure and that they say they'll listen to feedback, but won't necessarily commit resources. However I'm not sure that's the case. Perhaps there are issues with LINQ to SQL or they've found that it creates more calls and support cases for them. Microsoft is aware of the cost of issues, and for something like this that doesn't generate revenue, I'm not sure how willing they are to invest in it if it doesn't improve their business somehow. I've seen people on both sides of the LINQ to SQL debate, whether it is a good development strategy or not, but not a lot of details from blogs and developers as to whether it works well. It doesn't seem that it has been used long enough for anyone to really make a strong case either way, and with the resistance from DBAs and those that see it as a black box they can't work with, perhaps it will die. Perhaps it's just what it seems and that they have every intention of continuing work on this, just not as much as in other areas. In any case, it will be interesting to see if the Entity Framework provides any better benefits -- Richard Kaye Vice President Artfact/RFC Systems Voice: 617.219.1038 Fax: 617.219.1001 For the fastest response time, please send your support queries to: Technical Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] All Other Requests - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message has been checked for viruses before sending. - ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Nov 3, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Allen wrote: Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Ah, but *this* time it will be different! rof,lmao! -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Allen wrote: Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Al Certainly an argument could easily be made for this---Windows DNA comes to mind. When I read Richard's email, I had to laugh as I thought many times he could have been referencing Foxpro with the same words! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, MB Software Solutions, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allen wrote: Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Al Certainly an argument could easily be made for this---Windows DNA comes to mind. When I read Richard's email, I had to laugh as I thought many times he could have been referencing Foxpro with the same words! --- My co workers who went to PDC last week only talked about how cool Linq was and how in the next version there was a lot to look forward to. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
One old one that comes to mind is network dde. I had that working a treat. Then it went and nothing was easy :) Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions,LLC Allen wrote: Makes you wonder sometimes if Microsoft technology is worth following. As soon as you get used to it or find it even its dead. Bloody stupid Al Certainly an argument could easily be made for this---Windows DNA comes to mind. When I read Richard's email, I had to laugh as I thought many times he could have been referencing Foxpro with the same words! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
So it's a new version of linq then. Not a new thing and byebye linq ? Al -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Russell Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:41 PM --- My co workers who went to PDC last week only talked about how cool Linq was and how in the next version there was a lot to look forward to. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
Ted Roche wrote: Evolution is good, although you might not think so if your name were T. Rex. Change is good if it progresses in the right direction, but change for change sake (this year , with tailfins!) is just bilking the customer without delivering real value. It's not bad that MSFT innovates by trying new things. It's bad because they declare that the One True Direction before it should be out of beta, abandons support for an older, working, mature technology, and then repeats the process in a year or two. http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~MicrosoftBandWagon~SoftwareEng Well said! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it's a new version of linq then. Not a new thing and byebye linq ? From my understanding from those who actually read TFA and care, LINQ for SQL is like to be discouraged and then discontinued in favor of the Entity Framework. LINQ for other stuff is still being supported, for now. (For reasons cited above, I don't use LINQ myself in FoxPro, nor PHP, Ruby, Python.) -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] LINQ - RIP?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it's a new version of linq then. Not a new thing and byebye linq ? -- Linq is really 3 different products. Objects, XML and SQL would be their names, and the direction of what the query will act upon. If you have tried to work with XML in a dynamic situation? Linq will make that easier to query instead of parse. Linq for SQL just wraps dynamic sql to the backend server that becomes a exec sp_executesql more info here http://reflectedthought.com//thecoder/archive/2007/07/17/dark_side_of_linq_2_sql.aspx Do I see that this will get better in the next version? Oh yes I do. But only time will tell. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
