Sigh. It's hard to know where to begin critiquing this. I guess the TL;DR would be something like: "For constrained but not atypical data models (no N:M relati

Sigh. It's hard to know where to begin critiquing this. I guess the TL;DR would be something like: "For constrained but not atypical data models (no N:M relationships, foreign keys explicit in the schema, etc), it's possible to have a more concise syntax than SQL, with less impedance mismatch." But even that underwhelming statement is generous. In the 1980s, the object database claim to fame was less impedance mismatch, and ODI's "coding by deletion", but at least ODBs coupled that with claims to superior performance for network data models. Maybe it's just the grandiose title "LINQ beats SQL" that's so annoying. Simpler syntax would certainly be welcome for the relatively rare cases of humans generating SQL (I think most SQL is machine generated these days)... but only with a host of etceteris parabis conditions, prominently including performance.