|
Same here. Been working on a project that uses Linq to Entities primarily for "Airport" mode in an application.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid."
Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn.
Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning.
Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
modified 19-Nov-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
How is Linq-To-Entites different than Entity Framework? or are they one in the same?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
linq to entities can work with EF entities, but it is not EF per se. Hope that makes some sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
No, and also never used it.
|
|
|
|
|
No; SQL92 if I can choose, since it is rather portable.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
How often have you ported it?
|
|
|
|
|
I've got both Windows and Kubuntu running here; not using the database-servers dailect of SQL makes it easy to switch databases.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I took a while for me to like it but eventually I got to using it a lot and I haven't looked back.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Only for CRUD.
For heavy lifting you need to go back to proper SQL.
I do use Linq2objects a lot though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or you can roll your own.
|
|
|
|
|
Too busy with community engineering on CodeProject nowadays 
|
|
|
|
|
You mean rolling your own and posting an article about it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, it's awesome!
They call me different but the truth is they're all the same!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean something like
(from row in context.Person
where row.Name.Contains("foo")
select row).Take(10).ToList()
Do you (erroneously) "oppose it" to something like
context.Person.Where(x => x..Name.Contains("foo")).Take(10).ToList()
I guess I do then... but I usually use both syntax. Sometimes in the same query.
|
|
|
|
|
I use it almost weekly; as an example of what not to do
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to... but not anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Daily, yes. You just have to be very careful with how you write the queries and constantly inspect what Linq-to-SQL projects into actual SQL. Sometimes Linq is so clever that it project terrible and slow queries but in most cases you can fix it by "rewording" your Linq queries.
I believe Entity Framework has the same projection problem.
My plan is to live forever ... so far so good
|
|
|
|
|
Entity Framework Core for me. I like how it does migrations, and if done right, it can be portable across multiple database engines.
|
|
|
|
|
Never have, I dont mind writing proper code
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
MS did suggest a while ago that it should not be used production wise, rather use EF or some such.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Since I write mainly in VB I find the Linq syntax to be very cumbersome and hard to use. When I write in C# I'm far more likely to use Linq simply because the lambda syntax is far easier to read and use. In neither case do I use Linq -> SQL
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
