|
BINGO- We have a winner!
I use the .Net implementation of ADO to connect C# to SQL Server, and just parallel develop my classes and tables.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
Rolled my own in the 90s, rerolled many times since, in 4 different languages.
It seems that most devs who are using an ORM have it imposed from management! And they don't seem to be impressed.
This thread will be shared with my management 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Entity Framework (.Net Core) - with PostgreSQL. It's what the team uses and so far no major issues with it.
In the past I've rolled my own, used Linq to SQL and an older version of EF.
|
|
|
|
|
LLBLGen Pro, with it's own framework, but it also supports L2S and EF.
|
|
|
|
|
Dapper.
It's insanely fast and extremely flexible to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
+1 for Dapper along with Dapper.Contrib.
I actively avoid contracts that state EF as a requirement. I understand for some people it's the dog danglies but I can't see a compelling case to use EF.
I know that's just my mileage but I genuinely would like to know why people use EF as opposed to a micro-orm like Dapper or PetaPoco.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't see your [Dapper] reply before I submitted mine. I use Dapper as well, for the primary reason that you mentioned, it's insanely fast!
|
|
|
|
|
Rolled my own, which of course has developed over various projects.
I have looked at NHibernate and EF. Found NHibernate to be badly documented to the point I couldn't (on my own, as a freelancer) actually get anything to work at all. EF was simple enough to get started with, but trying to maintain it without everything breaking was difficult. Even harder when trying to either optimise things or extend functionality.
My own seems very easy to maintain/extend, but of course that's because I know every line of code having written them. I guess to an outside it might be tricky and it does require some hand-coding for each object; but it's a very mechanical process involving just 2 lines of code per d/b field, and a couple of constants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dapper [by Stackoverflow guy(s)]. I love it. Small, straight to the point. I only need it for executing stored procedures, and/or getting results back via stored procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a homegrown ORM called Postulate that is built around Dapper, with a CP article here in fact: Intro to Postulate ORM[^] This article is a bit out of date as I actively work on it here: [^]
I completely agree that EF is too complicated, and in particular it's the Migrations feature I have found really painful. (In fairness, my gf uses it at work, and she has no real issue with it. I guess your mileage may vary.)
I think ORM is neat area to work in, and I simply have a lot of passion for it. I've found it a really interesting challenge to balance simplicity and power. Dapper makes a lot of good things possible -- I'm a huge fan of Dapper.
I admire Dapper.FastCrud (I think it's called), it's another ORM built around Dapper as the name suggests, and I sort of envy the simplicity they achieved. I do a few extra things to support code-first and some special tooling to generate database tables from model classes.
I've actually never used Linq to SQL, but I hear lots of praise for it.
|
|
|
|
|
I always feel doubt when user first say "it's cool thing" and next they show WRAPPER or any other addition to the thing they name "cool". If it's so "cool", why it needs wrappers?? Really cool stuff has nothing to add/remove and it's simple to use. In this light I always recommend BLToolkit - the lib I never heard to be "wrapped", "stripped" or whatever. And it solves all my problems in one line of code almost always.
|
|
|
|
|
I highly recommend to look at BLToolkit (as a most stable and easy to use library) or it's successor (less stable, but like LINQ) linq2db.
We use BLToolkit for years and it's always enjoyment to solve all tasks in ONE LINE of code!
|
|
|
|
|
I too am a fan of Linq to SQL. I've taken a lot of flack for it from other developers though. The ONLY advantage I can think of for EF is that it's database agnostic, supposedly making it easier to change database engines...but I think that's an awful idea. Changing database engines is a big deal and should be treated as such!
|
|
|
|
|
Some don't seem to know the difference between an ORM and a "database engine"; and expect what is essentially a "logical entity to physical entity mapping" to behave like an SQL optimizer; and that "views", stored procs and sql pass through are now "no longer required".
They also confuse "operational" versus "informational"; ORM's are more applicable to LOB than data warehousing (and denormalizing).
I use EF (code first); and use it before resorting / supplementing with DDL and DML.
It's not "all or nothing". EF (i.e. ORM's) can co-exisit with other access methods.
As some pointed out, use ORM for CRUD (if you will); use BI for the informational; and "raw" for the rest.
And "data transfer objects" are a valid pattern; and not necessarily "redundant". With consistent naming, copying can be done via reflection.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Does the Flat Earth Society have members all round the world?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'll do my level best to find out (within my sphere of influence), orbit a few bucks on the answer.
Whichever comes first.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
modified 12-Apr-18 11:28am.
|
|
|
|
|
No just across the globe.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
I thought they came from all four corners of the Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Does the Flat Earth Society have members all round the worldacross the disc?
FTFY 
Ad astra - both ways!
|
|
|
|
|
Dunno. But I will ask around!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
What is their sphere of influence?
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
Their horizons aren't very broad, so while they say "no", the rest of us know better. 
|
|
|
|
|
The earth just appears flat because no matter which way you go it's down hill.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit, you're planely right on this ...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
