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

Historical perspective.

When Codd et. al. originally were working out the theory and implementation of relational databases, one entirely separate issue was "How do we query these things"? A number of strategies and syntaxes were proposed, with various strengths and weaknesses. One of those candidates was SQL (in its earliest form, obviously.) Another was QBE (Query By Example). Another was called "quel", I believe; and there were several others. SQL certainly didn't become dominant because it was acclaimed as superior to all others. Unfornately, though, the others have pretty much disappeared, to the poverty of us all (because they could be used simultaneously on the same data.)

If Microsoft has a good story that they are reviving one of these other languages, or have invented a worthy addition, then I think we would be well-advised to listen up. But so far all I've seen is yet another "One Ring To Rule Them All".

There's a hell of a lot of thought and rigor behind SQL, and a lot of time-proven durability. Microsoft has a certain history of believing that their admittedly top-grade development organization can out-think the rest of us, including our collective institutional memories. It doesn't seem often to work that way. As long as we're bonded to relational data stores, we should think twice about superset abstraction paradigms that move us away from the bare metal with promises of equal or better performance.