>Rick, I agree with your comments about CRUD.
>
>FWIW, efficiency hasn't been a concern in CRUD for quite some time. Numerous developers use Stored Procedures without change tracking, passing every field every time. It's easy to rear back in horror at that, but pragmatically it's clearly "good enough" and therefore justifiable in an age with cheap hardware and expensive labor. On that basis, Linq to SQL clearly has a lot to offer, especially if it keeps up with featuresets for multiple databases.

LINQ to SQL is not only about CRUD. It's about a whole data access layer and it fails pretty miserable at that.

I suggest you of all people take the time to play with it and convince yourself that it is or isn't a fit for you. Knowing your data background to some degree from previous discussions my guess is you will find LINQ seriously lacking in many ways.

For a taste of some of the things to deal with check out my LINQ posts over the last few days on my blog (www.west-wind.com/weblog/). There are lots - DUH issues with LINQ that really make serious data access through a middle tier more complex than it's worth.


>I also agree on the tier issue. My understanding is that MS is doing something about it.

Well, not in this rev of LINQ to SQL. Possibly in the Entity framework, but definitely not in LINQ to SQL.