http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660Here we go again: 1) LINQ to SQL v1 was written by the LINQ to SQL team, which was "owned" by C# and VB; which one owned it at any particular time depended on who needed the tighter turn-around during development. The LINQ to SQL team didn't work on either the C# or VB compilers. The current owner is the ADO.NET/DP org. 2) There was a provider model. There was also a different provider model being worked on by the ADO.NET folks. Having two different, incompatible provider models does not make sense for attracting third parties, and so the one in EF was chosen. 3) While Matt Warren was the architect, the PM was Dinesh Kulkarni, not Luca Bolognese. 4) EF was never "LINQ to SQL v2". It was developed in parallel according to different priorities and architecture. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment68http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment68Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:56:38 GMTCraig, the mickey mouse gag slayed me.... Anyway I only today learned about MS plans (or lack of) for LINQ in a job interview of all places. The guy asked me "what do you think of LINQ?" to which I replied very enthusiastically "Love it". That was met with a grimace and "oooh" where then he told me that the inside scoop from MS was that it was to be discontinued. For the record I was being sincere, I do love LINQ to SQL even though I had my doubts about its performance for large scale projects, I can see some performance lag in my very small scale apps. Looks like I'll have to look into this NHibernate thing ;) http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment67http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment67Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:41:45 GMTDiscontinuing future work on Linq2Sql makes sense. It's just too lightweight to handle a real domain model. If I ever get hired by Disney and they need me to write an application for Mickey Mouse, I'd be sure to pull out Linq 2 Sql where I can totally disregard best domain modelling practices. I am so dissapointed in Linq2Sql I'm afraid I can't give any other opinion on this technology while I'm still p#ssed off at the fact that I actually thought it could solve a specific problem I faced or that it had the proper support to help point me in the right direction instead if the "sorry it can't be done" reply (no not replies - as only one person saw the need to reply to my query and I thank you Damien - this is not directed at you - you cool ;-) Ok, enough sucking up. I'm glad they pulling the plug, as for EF? I've added my signature to the Vote of No Confidence doing the rounds on the internet. Not sure if I can post links, so if you interested in the vote of no confidence in the EF, just google it and you'll find the information. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment66http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment66Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:01:19 GMTActually, this is great news. It means I can and should ignore the new data access technologies coming out of MS. NHibernate all the way. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment65http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment65Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:51:28 GMTBOOOOOBIES --ok let the nerddom continue http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment64http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment64Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:58:40 GMT@Colin Jack re: "Well according to the EF team it isn't an ORM so no not really, one is a big heavyweight badly thought through solution and the other was small/tight and a good v1 idea (despite bad guidance about drag and drop). So no, not really." Wait, so if I search the ADO.NET blog, they'll constantly decry how EF is not really an ORM tool at all, right? So why is that not the case? A quick search turned up post after post about how EF is an ORM tool and the approaches they take to solving "ORM issues". My statement was not a comment on the quality of either LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework, I was merely trying to suggest that Microsoft seems to think that Entity Framework is the ORM tool they want to use, effectively making it LINQ to SQL v2.0. Does that mean you can't use LINQ to SQL? No. Hell, you can still use Typed Datasets, if you're feeling particularly masochistic. Or you can wait for LINQ to NHibernate. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment63http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment63Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:20:21 GMTDan, Please see my next post about this. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment62http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment62Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:18:17 GMTWell, It's good to know this, because means nhibernate woul be still around...but...It;s better to see our errors before and work hard whitout taliking to much, right now NH could loose all the clients if we did not fix the current problems, specially performance, and query generation n the last moment, I was working with webORb (for flex) with NH on the server side, it works, good , but we still need to improve before start to talk, and watch out with Entity Framework. keep working it's better than keep talking. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment61http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment61Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:31:01 GMTL2S is really nice but not complete and now it is the step child as the ADO.NET blog post shows. It is time to get nhibernate-linq to mature a bit further. We all know how much Microsoft and ADO.NET team in particular listen to customers. There was a vote of no confidence in entity framework and they ignored it and started investing more in it. That pig is not going to become a quick rabbit, much less a racehorse. Starting with wrong concepts like one giant model that is neither relational nor object and adding more bloat doesn't give you anything useful. Yeah, now they say, they will look at the normal ORM scenarios. That is like building a race car on a 18-wheeler platform. If you are serious, throw the junk that people voted against out and start with something better. Oren, when can we get a good drop of nhibernate-linq? Please tell us there is a holiday present waiting for us. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment60http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment60Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:18:12 GMTI have been using L2S for a large project and have enjoyed the experience. Any difficulties I have had, have been a result of my not trusting the framework. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment59http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment59Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:38:09 GMTI just completed building a web application using LINQ and VS 2008. I am very pleased with the results, and it took half the time it would have taken using plain ADO.NET. The only thing I can say about all these people not liking it, is that maybe they never really gave it a try, because it was different from the using ADO stuff in the .NET framework? I love being able to navigate the DataContext object and query straight from my code, instead of writing external SQL queries and executing them with dataTables and dataSets. I hope LINQ only continues to grow and maybe some of the disbelievers will catch on to this great development tool http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment58http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment58Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:51:54 GMTDamien, Please, try to read your blog with a small screen, i.e. with a mobile phone(and mine is one of the larger, a N95 8Gb). By the way, I quite liked L2S, I was planning to use it for a project of mine, kudos to Oren about this post (neuron jumping, Iain Banks gave a great description of how a kudos based society could work on The Algebraist). Ale http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment57http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment57Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:51:10 GMTI've just read this and looked up what LINQ actually is. From where i am standing it doesn't look too bad. I got out of the MS software train back when VB6 was still new and every new release of Data Access Objects would completely screw my software. I am now firmly in the "other" camp: Java, Hibernate, Hibernate Search, EJB 3.0, Lucene, Eclipse, GWT, ExtGWT etc etc. You get the point. I'd just like to ask this... Do you all still write applications that rely on SQL queries fired from input to the user? If so, you guys need to look at Lucene and Hibernate Search. This has revolutionized our software and the users LOVE it. Hibernate Search integrates with Lucene transparently and indexes you entities for you. You then use a Google-like search syntax to find them again. It's truly fast !!!! Anyway, i hope you all have fun with MS's next framework. And the next.... and the next .... :) http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment56http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment56Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:35:46 GMTDamien, I am not challenging what you are saying but all I want to say is that L2S is not a class. It is a technology which has some limitations. A class and a technology in my terms are different. If I don't like a limitation of a .Net class, I can code a workaround or use a third party software, but L2S is a platform which I cannot extend. I will love to see the limitations being removed and new features added. I don't know about others, but I love L2S. But anyways, I hope you guys will do what you are saying and someday L2S will get a v2. Better late then never. :) http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment55http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment55Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:17:13 GMTWe've not said we won't add new features. What we have said is improving the core of LINQ to SQL and closing the gap to EF are the priorities for 4.0 right now. We have a list of feature requests from a variety of sources. Some of these fit with the "lean and mean" approach of LINQ to SQL and others pull in a different direction. Guess which are more likely. [)amien http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment54http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment54Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:59:10 GMTDamien, Exactly zero parts of the linq provider for NHibernate is tied to a specific database. The complexity is in the linq parsing and handling. I would say that the 70% can be broken apart to allow making the changes to the SQL to match the different DBs. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment53http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment53Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:47:00 GMTDamien, Are you going to do stuff with ODBC? Without significant investment in the platform, that is what L2S became. The fact that it might still work is not relevant, you aren't going to get new features, support is harder, and there is no path for improvement. A lot of people went to L2S accepting its limitations, with the hope to be able to get the new stuff. MS going back on that means that they are basically left hanging. When the statement now is that it is going to get very few resources, and not much push, that it a big problem. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment52http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment52Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:45:10 GMTYes, internally LINQ to SQL has a provider model that is closed. It is important to note however that writing other providers is a massive undertaking. The SQL Provider represents about 70% of the runtime source code in LINQ to SQL and so re-implementing that is not trivial especially if you also have to write designer/mapping tools (they are SQL Server specific). It does a lot of magic to get those queries looking as good as they do. @Roger: There are no other providers disabled - it was simply the interface that was made private. @Ayende: As I'm sure you are aware from your work on NHibernate writing a provider is a very difficult task given the subtle differences in database providers. [)amien http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment51http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment51Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:39:54 GMT@Yogesh so you're saying any classes in .NET that don't get new methods and properties in the next release are dead and you shouldn't use them? LINQ to SQL is liked *because* it's lightweight and simple. We don't want to distract from that core principle. [)amien http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment50http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment50Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:29:18 GMT"Firstly we are going to make sure LINQ to SQL continues to operate as it should." "Secondly we will evolve LINQ to Entities to encompass the features and ease of use that people have come to expect from LINQ to SQL." "LINQ to SQL will continue to work and EF will better address the needs of LINQ to SQL users with each new release." "This isn’t to say LINQ to SQL won’t ever get new features. The communities around LINQ to SQL are a continuous source of ideas but we need to consider how they fit the minimalistic lightweight approach LINQ to SQL is already valued for." Reading the above statements by Damien, I am even more sure L2S would not be improved upon. The "but" in the above last statement says it all. Although L2S will work as it does today, everyone does expect improvements. .Net 1.1 also worked and still works, but how many people use it today? For me, no improvements = L2S is dead. PS: I switched back to Subsonic for my project. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment49http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment49Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:11:43 GMTI'm on the LINQ to SQL team and have posted a response at [damieng.com/blog/2008/10/31/linq-to-sql-next-steps](http://damieng.com/blog/2008/10/31/linq-to-sql-next-steps) [)amien http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment48http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment48Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:12:44 GMT dun forget Language "M" http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment47http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment47Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:21:16 GMTYou're all a bunch of whiners. As far as I know, there's no such thing as 'killbits' in .NET Framework. Every new release is backwards compatible, so the System.Data.Linq assembly isn't going anywhere. Just because Linq to Sql won't evolve it doesn't mean it's dead, or you shouldn't use it. It's there, it works, why not use it? I think a lot of people here have a misconception of the API design and management in the .NET framework. APIs in .NET aren't supposed to evolve much. I know it's very ambitious, but take for example XML. First you had System.Xml, then System.Xml.Xpath, then System.Xml.Linq. Maybe next release will include a new XML API, that doesn't mean you can't or shoudn't use System.Xml. What Microsoft is saying is, if you want more features use EF. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment46http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment46Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:52:25 GMT"Linq to SQL _has_ a provider model. It was disabled by Microsoft" Um, then it DOESN'T have one you can use, does it? If it is not supported or exposed by MS then you should not use it. You definately can't use it as a 3rd party developer for VSIP integration. It would be like using PINVOKE to call all sorts of undocumented MS calls, you would never get your app certified by MS. I can write internal APIs all day long. That doesn't mean I ship them or expose them. Just because you can see something in Reflector does not mean it is usable, stable, or supported. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment45http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment45Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:35:10 GMTI can't believe some of you people. LINQ to SQL was garbage. I hated it. There are so many other OR mappers that are so much better. And how could anybody defend Workflow? Talk about another pile of garbage. Such a ridiculous amount of work to do even the most simple task. I hate it. I hate them both. Good ridden. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment44http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment44Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:34:20 GMTSimone, I'm sure in few years Microsoft will provide something usable, and possibly this will be the Entity Framework. But the blog clearly says that Linq to SQL is dumped in favor of the EF, and maybe in future they will listen to some user needs and provide some more or less sensible replacement (i mean it's clear after you filter out the double-talk). But listening to user needs is not the strongest point of Microsoft. These 'Program Managers' have never seen a real user, c'mon. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment43http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment43Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:45:41 GMTAs usual people start ranting and raving without bringing anything to the discussion (ie Java vs .NET). My opinion is that the features of L2S will be incorporated inside EFv2... If you watch the PDC video of the EF Futures you'll have that exact same feeling. To me it's not a big issue, L2S is not an ORM but was a nice DAL writing accelerator. If they make EFv2 a real ORM probably none will need to have a dynamic sql statement generator. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment42http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment42Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:39:51 GMTJeremy, Read between the lines, and put the management speak filter on http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment41http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment41Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:20:40 GMT"Has anyone considered the possibility that Entity Framework *is* LINQ to SQL version 2.0? " Well according to the EF team it isn't an ORM so no not really, one is a big heavyweight badly thought through solution and the other was small/tight and a good v1 idea (despite bad guidance about drag and drop). So no, not really. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment40http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment40Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:40:28 GMTHas anyone considered the possibility that Entity Framework *is* LINQ to SQL version 2.0? I mean, sure, the Alt.NET community really hates EF, but they've never really been all that happy with LINQ to SQL, either. And technologies losing support is par for the course in the .NET framework -- it's a constantly changing environment. It's not they update non-generic collections all the time, and yet some folks still use them. LINQ to SQL may not be updated again, but it's not going away. http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment39http://ayende.com/3664/microsoft-kills-linq-to-sql#comment39Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:18:21 GMT