3 ms·
I’m a fan of Dapper for doing the tedious mapping and result set handling stuff but still sticking to SQL. I don’t really find writing LINQ instead of simple SQ
by emodendroket 4y ago
I’m a fan of Dapper for doing the tedious mapping and result set handling stuff but still sticking to SQL. I don’t really find writing LINQ instead of simple SQL queries is much of a time saver.
- setr 4y agoI'm not a fan of the LINQ syntax itself so much as the fact that I'm not longer dealing with arbitrary strings being smashed together that happen to form a valid SQL statement, and all the benefits that inevitably come with not having stringly-typed logic (like being able to refactor properly, type safety, proper autocomplete, no-typos-at-runtime, etc). It maps closely enough to SQL itself that the negatives of having to use an "intermediate" language/api aren't significant, and the magic can be made negligible, so it's largely pure gains.
- emodendroket 4y agoThe tools are good enough that my IDE can detect SQL strings and offer suggestions, plus once the database starts getting used by multiple applications even type safety won’t really make it safe to go renaming existing columns.