3 ms·
.NET also has NHibernate. I'm not intimately familiar with the pros/cons of LINQ to SQL vs NHibernate, but I believe it gives you a lot more control over things
by Johngibb 15y ago
.NET also has NHibernate. I'm not intimately familiar with the pros/cons of LINQ to SQL vs NHibernate, but I believe it gives you a lot more control over things like pre-loading associations, etc (while requiring a lot more configuration).
- stonemetal 15y agoOne con of LINQ to SQL is that it only supports MS's DBs. LINQ to Entities is the more flexible version. Though you have to go whole hog and use Entity Framework. There is also a active record implementation for .NET called castle active record.
- notJim 15y ago> One con of LINQ to SQL is that it only supports MS's DBs. This is not true for Entity Framework (which is essentially the newest iteration of Linq2Sql.) I have successfully used EF with SQLite in production, and it appears to have a MySQL driver as well (I honestly don't know how well the MySQL driver works.)
- stonemetal 15y agoThat is what I meant by LINQ to Entities, which is what I thought they were calling the new version. There are plenty of DB drivers(I think they call them providers) for EF.