LINQ To SQL Gets Kicked to the Curb… Needs A Good Home!

Based on the recent announcement on the ADO.NET Team Blog:

“We’re making significant investments in the Entity Framework such that as of .NET 4.0 the Entity Framework will be our recommended data access solution for LINQ to relational scenarios.  We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well.”

I highly recommend that Microsoft re-instate the original development team for LINQ To SQL and have them put together a release for .NET 4.0 that is placed on CodePlex as open source. There is no way the ADO.NET Team can do what is right for LINQ To SQL given their obvious bias to the Entity Framework.

I recommend the new team use a similar approach to that of the ASP.NET MVC Team where we get a highly testable, opinionated, lightweight O/R Mapper that has frequent CTP releases with attention to continuous community feedback.

Personally, I suspect improving LINQ To SQL is far easier and less resource intensive than what needs to be done to improve the ADO.NET Entity Framework. Let a new team release a LINQ To SQL version 2.0 and then leave it up to the community to continue the effort going forward if nobody at Microsoft wants to keep the project going.

Ideally, I would like to see LINQ to SQL eventually fall under the same management as the MVC Framework as I think MVC is to ASP.NET Webforms as LINQ To SQL is to the ADO.NET Entity Framework.

Just a thought :)


David Hayden

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

27 Responses to LINQ To SQL Gets Kicked to the Curb… Needs A Good Home!

  1. Willem says:

    I agree: If there’s a petition, let me know too where to sign it, we’ve also invested too much in this simple but great solution to give up now.

  2. Feedback You Say? says:

    Where can we give feedback? If Microsoft is listening then why not mention the URL instead of just saying Microsoft is listening?

  3. Michael says:

    What’s next? Dump C#? C’mon. Refactoring is great but this is ridiculous!

  4. Caber says:

    If you want a LINQ to SQL ORM check out SqlTac. It extends LINQ to SQL with extension methods. Support for REST, WCF Window Messaging and Obfuscation attribute right out of the box. Over 25 different options.

  5. KG2V says:

    I’m glad I didn’t invest significant time learning it – RIP -sigh

  6. Colin Jack says:

    @ Joel
    Don’t be naive, they were hardly going to say

    “Yeah we won the power struggle, sorry if you invested time in Linq To Sql but its OK because there are some great open source alternatives….”

  7. Chris says:

    Probably too obvious for MS to do it Dave, but glad you said it anyway.

  8. Well this sucks, I guess its time to drink the NHibernate Kool-Aid. Sip…. Hey it’s not that ba….(fall over dead). Just kidding, but seriously NHibernate seems like the clear choice for the community OR/M. Maybe the tools that make Linq to SQL so appealing could be built around NHibernate.

  9. mike kidder says:

    @Rob – great to hear you chime in. Would be great to see your group to take this on….

  10. Matt Brooks says:

    Please may I suggest you post your opinions in this thread: It might help the issue become more visible and help support for LINQ to SQL gather momentum.

  11. Joel Duvall says:

    You know I have to say that this is nothing new that EF was going to be the preferred way. But they are NOT dropping Linq to SQL or kicking it to the curb as you say.

    Read the quote! “We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well.”

  12. Dan Shechter says:

    Linq 2 Sql HAS a GOOD old home. It’s the mono implementation that is completely OPEN SOURCE and supports most DBs already as is:

  13. Ian Cooper says:

    @David I completely agree. LINQ To SQL is far closer to being what I would expect from an ORM than EF is. Putting it under the Data Services team was smothering it at birth. EF also gives me no confidence in the Data Services team understanding of what we need from an ORM tool.

    I guess the EF team is embarrassed by how much better L2S was and want to see it die so that it does not have to remind them of where they went wrong every morning.

    @Rob if you wanted to pick this up then I would cheer you on. Go Rob, go.

  14. Jens says:

    If there’s a petittion, let me know where to sign it, we’ve invested too much in this simple but great solution to give up now.

  15. Dragosh says:

    I totally agree with you.

    LINQ to SQL is a great tool. Is light, small and FAST.

    EF is BIG, No leazy loading and IS NOT FAST for machines that are not hardware up to date.

    The ASP.NET MVC has the best development plan.

    Use the same for LINQ to SQL, or, maybe, more will move to another ORM.

  16. 100% agreed specially for the suggestion about the MVC like approach

  17. First, I love LINQ to SQL. I’ve been scared of LINQ to Entity because of having to learn another language and having my db changes not reflected in my model. After talking to one of the MS (non biased of course) smart guys, I’m rethinking my position. Maybe with LINQ to Entities, I can do the same thing as LINQ to SQL but have an upgrade path when i want to take advantage of more thiings.

    BTW, thanks for the post, it’s definitely on my mind as I’m sure others.

  18. Rafi says:

    Ok this is totally freaken unbelievable. I have been using Linq to SQL everywhere with hope that it would be evolved. Honestly, if they don’t improve Linq to SQL and dump it for overly complex Entity Framework, then I am definitely gona dump MS platform.

    So I agree with you if MS listenning to the community then they would do exactly as you suggested. That is they do not let the entity framework team touch it.

  19. Chad Moran says:

    I have to agree, I think ADO.NET Entity Framework information has always been muddy at best. I even tried to use it a few times and it just didn’t feel natrual.

    To be honest though this is the Microsoft way… look at the branding and product issues with MSN/Live.

    I would agree I’d like to see LINQ to SQL be brought under the same type of development as MVC.

  20. Martin Nyborg says:

    Just my words, get LINQ2SQL out in the open.

  21. DaRage says:

    I hate to see Linq2Sql die.. i’m using it for a lot of projects already?
    David do something maaan!!

  22. Ben Hart says:

    Saw that roadmap post earlier today, and confess I cringed a little. LinqToSql has found a nice sweet-spot, and deservedly so.

    I hope someone’s listening. Maybe we need another petition πŸ˜€

  23. Rob says:

    Well said.

  24. Rob Conery says:

    I’ll volunteer to take this on! Good writeup as always David πŸ˜‰

  25. That is seriously lame.

    LINQ to SQL fills a GAP where EF is clearly not ready for prime-time. EF v1 looks like an overly complex L2S. EF v2 addresses some of my concerns, but if I want an ORM, I’ll choose NHibernate.

    I see LINQ to SQL be a really nice framework for those apps that don’t warrant the complexity of a full blown ORM. code gen, SubSonic, Castle ActiveRecord, pick your poison.

    I heartily 2nd your suggestion.

  26. Colin Jack says:

    Couldn’t agree more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>