4 ms·
I wouldn't call it an abomination per se, but it is a very heavy ORM in my opinion. It works well for CRUD, but can be a dog in performance for very complex que
by soundwave106 10y ago
I wouldn't call it an abomination per se, but it is a very heavy ORM in my opinion. It works well for CRUD, but can be a dog in performance for very complex queries. (These type of queries can be offloaded into stored procs, of course... but inexperienced developers might "forge ahead" and create low-performance code in EF, unfortunately...)
From my perspective, my biggest problem with EF is that Microsoft seemed to half-abandon any concept of "light weight data access layer" (like the previous Linq to SQL), and pushed Entity Framework as The One True Way to call the data layer. EF is definitely suitable for Microsoft's "core audience" of large, enterprise-y CRUD apps, but IMHO it's rather heavy for a simple web page with a few data calls. Fortunately there's things like Dapper that are great for small quick apps.
- WorldMaker 10y agoEF Core is much lighter-weight and tries to be a best of both worlds, pushing some of the heavier stuff into extensions/plugins rather than out of the box. This is why some of the fans of the heavy old EF dislike EF Core, but I'm happy EF Core takes an overall lighter-weight approach.
- douche 10y agoThere's no reason you can't keep using Linq-to-SQL. It's not the new hotness, but it still works just fine. If you're doing SQL Server, I wouldn't see any reason not to use it. I may have Stockholm syndrome, though.