Arthur Fuller
fuller.artful at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 12:27:29 CST 2012
Thanks for the guidance, guys! I shall plod on, in my semi-retirement shrinking-grasp mode. Centimeter by centimeter, as it were, but as the snail said, "It's Progress." A. On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Gustav Brock <gustav at cactus.dk> wrote: > Hi Arthur > > And don't forget LINQPad: > > http://www.linqpad.net/ > > It's even free but for a small amount you can buy the Pro version with > autocompletion and more. > > /gustav > > > >>> df.waters at comcast.net 08-01-2012 17:12 >>> > Hi Arthur, > > LINQ is a Microsoft BIG DEAL! It's NOT being deprecated. > > What you may have read is that Linq-to-SQL is being deprecated - also not > true. A few years ago MS apparently said something that was misinterpreted > as LtS being deprecated in favor of Linq-to-Entities, and that sparked a > rumor which hasn't died yet. > > In a very broad definition LINQ replaces recordsets. > > LTS and LTE are similar concepts. Each provides a way to avoid using lots > of connection and command code to update the underlying database. The > broad > difference is that LtS works only with Sql Server, while LtE works with any > database. As you might guess, LtS is simpler and faster. If you're > defining your own tables in Sql Server it's the right path to take. With > any other BE, you'll need LtE. LtE can make developer life easier because > you can avoid 'impedance mismatch' between the data fields and types in the > BE, and what the FE really wants to have (I don't know much about LtE). > But > you won't have that if you're designing your own tables. LtE is also more > complex than LtS, and I've read where some shops have deemed it too > problematic and have stopped using it. > > Another thing you may hear is that LtS and LtE are slow. I've read both, > but the consensus is that if you're operating on large numbers of records, > you may want to do some comparison testing to see if it's fast enough. For > example, in my system when I initially opened a form and pulled over all > the > table records from BE to FE across a WAN (~ 16K records), the form took > about 30 seconds to open. But when I rewrote it so that only one record at > a time came across, there was no opening lag. I didn't compare to opening > an ADO recordset with 16K records so I don't have a comparison. > > Do some searches on 'Learning LINQ', 'Learning Linq to SQL', etc., and > you'll have reading for a week. > > Good Luck! > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 9:41 AM > To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues > Subject: [dba-Tech] Linq > > I'm learning C# 2010 and part of that concerns Linq. I thought I'd read > something about Linq being deprecated. Am I mistaken? Am I wasting my time > learning that part? > > -- > Arthur > Cell: 647.710.1314 > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-Tech mailing list > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > -- Cell: 647.710.1314 Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. -- Werner Heisenberg