>>Yes I understand. But still intellisense is not there when you most need it right, when you are writing an SQL (it wasn't there in VFP either and missed as dearly), so all this strongly typed dataset business does not make a hell of a lot of (intelli)sense to me.
>
>I think the idea is that you're not supposed to be writing SQL with the ORM tools available these days.

Yes. I would guess so too.... but if like me you think your sql's are part of your logic and that that is the part that you will need to get back to most of the time, you want to see the sql, and not some convoluted query name that you would then have to retrieve from some external piece of software.

Uniil now I have found that to stay away from all that BS and writing my sql's more or less in line is best from a maintainance/change management point of view. If I were to support anything, I would concentrate in easing the writing of ad hoc sql's . Wouldn't it be great if .net connected to the SQL database and dumped your fieldnames in intellisense (we could have done that in vfp)? .Net doing much more sophisticated and cryptic stuff that must have cost much more to develop and is much less used, often because nobody knows what it is about. Sorry, I did promise to avoid the ranting, but I couldn't help it.