>Hi,
>
>I was surfing for more info about c# 3.0 and LINQ and maybe this was already talked about. but there was an interesting BLOG entry at the following site
>
>October 16,2006
>

FWIW, the whole underlying architecture of LINQ will eventually be the basis for ADO.NET based ORM that is language integrated (ie. hopefully easier to use and set up than standard ORM solutions).

ORM can be a huge time saver and reduces huge amounts of code, but it's not a perfect fit for all data scenarios. Using pure SQL inside of code is IMHO a bad call too and a precipe for application disaster.

The key is to make the ORM integration seamless and I think that's the holy grail for DLINQ, although it doesn't look like this is coming anytime soon given what I've seen of it so far. This is no easy job and I think Microsoft is really struggling with this one and have been for years (starting with WinFs,then in the early LINQ prototypes into now that it's become part of the ADO.NET platform).


+++ Rick ---


>http://blogs.tedneward.com/
>
>OK, but where can I go to get more info about O/R-M so I don't fall into the quagmire?" Excellent question. Roy Osherove has started a community site about O/R-Ms, which I think holds promise for discussion on the topic. The JDO crowd had several resources available at JDOCentral, and there's lots of discussion about O/R-M (stretching back several years) on TheServerSide. BEA, with its acquisition of Solarmetric, now owns one of the better O/R-M tools on the market, Kodo, and they're likely to still have numerous white papers and such on the subject.
>"OK, but where can I go to get more info about object persistence tools?" Right now, the only one I have any faith in is the db4o project; in fact, I'm speaking at their first user/developer conference in London in a few weeks. I've used others (such as Versant) in the past, and frankly, wasn't incredibly impressed.
>"OK, but where can I go to get more info about these other languages/approaches?" Keep your eye on LINQ, for starters, as that's one of the first mainstream attempts to bring some of these ideas into traditional statically-typed object platforms. Scala and F# I already mentioned. Ruby is another place to spend some time, as there's a lot of features Ruby has that are trying to make their way into other languages. And, although I will likely gather some serious heat for saying this, Visual FoxPro may have some of the most interesting "best of both worlds" mojo in the entire language space on this subject.
>"Great post!" Thanks.
>
>
>I felt this was important as the M$ people are starting to get the inate value of VFP's data handling + language... I think we will see more of this as teh "Dynamic Languages" ruby, python start to move into better data handling. I never liked the whole ORM / object persistance crap. Most of the programmers I know have to work with data and once they see the simplicity of VFP they GET IT...
>
>
>It doesn't mean they will switch to the DARK SIDE but when new versions of their pet language is annouced they look for "LINQ" / VFP like data access.
>
>Anyway back to work....