>>Oh, if you insist: for a while, typed datasets were the most sensible way to do data in NET.
>>
>>That's like saying that a llama is the best way to get around the Andes. That's cool- if you're in the Andes. Not so cool if you're in New York. ;-)
>>
>>But the last post was a joke- did you see the last sentence? In the end, focus has shifted anyway and "what dinosaur is best" isn't interesting as it once was.
>
>Oh, I knew it was a joke. But I only joke about sending letters to Meadow Soprano :)
>
>Funny you mentioned NY. An old client of mine in NYC reached out to me a few months to build a small database app that needed some WCF functionality. I built it and used typed datasets - and turned it over to one of their younger developers, who was able to understand it all quite well and has made some mods to it.
>
>Typed datasets are still in the mix. Tried and true and still in some .NET curriculums. But suppose for a sec that they really weren't. Well, let's go back about a week to some prior SQL posts. Suppose (hypothetically) I made the argument that recursion in SQL 2005 and newer analytic capabilities in the SQL 2012 made correlated subqueries unnecessary for the old "perform varying pattern". After all, correlated subqueries "for a while were the most sensible way", but now there are newer ways and it might not necessarily be "cool".

Eh, I don't get what you are trying to say here Kevin. I've told you what my approach is, and said I respected yours and noami's. What the best solution is or not I leave up to the reader. I like subqueries, EXISTS(), and using null joins to create solutions, you like to use new constructs and commands in SQL Server to create queries. If I had to pick two people to join my team on a heavy SQL server project, you and noami would be in if the selection on knowledge was critical, because both of you have qualities that are valuable.

As far as typed datasets go. I've explained the reason for me shivering and shaking by the idea of typed datasets, as I do with VFPs local and remote views, because of its inflexible nature, therefore claming not to fit into a picture of dynamic and flexible solutions.

I could not express myself clearer than I've done. There is no need to go dramatic about it. If you're fine with it and can create the most beautifull software with typed datasets, I'd say: Good for you. But do not expect me to cheer for it because I did not give it a try. No pun intended, but that too me is an indication that someone does not have the ability to see where technologies fit in the big picture of the software development landscape.


Relax and peace.