• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Mon, May 10, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

Is .NET Entity Framework still cool?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
    You don't know what you are talking about bro.
    This is a professional forum not General. Keep it in your pants. Bro.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by minestrone View Post
      Does nHibernate get used much in the .NET market?
      I feel like it never really caught on

      Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
        You don't know what you are talking about bro.
        You could be correct but the lack of detail and arguments in your reply dont really enlighten anyone.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by woohoo View Post
          Never found it an issue with embedded sql, you tend to organise the repositories so they make sense. 80% of your work is simple update/insert/delete/fetch and you can use contrib so this basic sql is done for you.

          It's one of those if you can write decent sql and can organise a piss up in brewery you can successfully use Dapper or most other micro-orms.

          Dapper does have it's limitations, same for repository pattern but this crap about magic strings is nonsense.
          What I mean really is that with the Linq 2 Db approach, the complier checks your Linq, with embedded SQL + parameters it is easy to make mistakes and if you change the DB to a different vendor then the SQL might need to change.

          I'm not slating Dapper, I've used it and I like it, was just pointing out to +/- points to consider.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
            What I mean really is that with the Linq 2 Db approach, the complier checks your Linq, with embedded SQL + parameters it is easy to make mistakes and if you change the DB to a different vendor then the SQL might need to change.

            I'm not slating Dapper, I've used it and I like it, was just pointing out to +/- points to consider.
            No, fair enough and didnt mean to be defensive though on re-reading my reply i was quite harsh, apologies.

            Comment

            Working...
            X