HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're pretty lucky that you haven't had to know SQL to have good luck.

Having used Linq2SQL for a few years, I don't like this style of coding. Often, to optimize a query, we've had to look at the generated SQL and then reverse engineer it back to Linq to get the SQL that we wanted. While certain queries were really easy in Linq2SQL, the more complex ones were extremely difficult. I had to still understand and write the underlying SQL, then I had to figure out how to "translate" that into the Linq2SQL. In the long run, all time savings were nullified. I see the same with a DSL-type of wrapper like this.

Additionally, almost all good backend devs speak SQL, I can take a Java-person and without the Linq2SQL stuff, he could understand our backend, work on queries, etc. The Linq just added another layer of complexity for someone to think about.

(Granted, there's a database layer that we could truly put a lot of that stuff in, if our queries got really complex)



I haven't used linq2SQL or anything, just LINQ on collections in .NET.

A team I'm a part of (language is C#) had to get rid of a library that handled SQL and do the SQL manually because the library was making a lot of inefficient calls. Sounds like a similar problem.


If you had that sort of experience, wouldn't it have been easier to write SQL instead of Linq?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: