Doesn't Linq to SQL miss the point? Aren't ORM-mappers (SubSonic, etc.) sub-optimal solutions?

Question

I\'d like the community\'s take on some thoughts I\'ve had about Linq to Sql and other ORM mappers.

I like Linq to Sql and the idea of expressing data access logic (

Answer 1

As Dmitriy pointed out, developers don't know SQL. More precisely, the majority know SQL, but don't understand it and definitely don't like, so they tend to search for the magic bullet, creating the demand for things like Linq to make the illusion (hm, abstraction) that they don't use anything different than their beloved classes.

That's very bad, as the law of leaky abstractions always holds true.

Some ORM solutions are definite good (e.g. JPA/Hibernate), not because using them you don't have to worry about SQL. In fact, to use JPA effectively you need very deep understanding of the DB in general, querying abilities in particular. The good point is that they make the machine do the boring work, to the point where it autogenerates entire database from scratch.

Linq to SQL, as I think, doesn't solve real problem. It's kind of other presentation, nothing more. It might be good, though it overcomplicates the already complex language. On the other hand, Linq to Objects is very interesting concept, because it's kind of sql-querying the collections.