Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:16 UTC, submitted by Wyatt Lyon Preul
.NET (dotGNU too) Scott Guthrie has announced that Visual Studio 2008 and .NET 3.5 are now available for download and provides a tour of some of the new features. "Visual Studio 2008 and .NET 3.5 contain a ton of new functionality and improvements. Below are links to blog posts I've done myself as well as links to videos you can watch to learn more about it."
Thread beginning with comment 285324
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ruby on Rails
by airwedge1 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:17 UTC
airwedge1
Member since:
2006-02-22

Anyone else get the feeling that a ms dev saw Ruby on Rails, and copied almost the exact functionality into vs .net in the form of linq? They've played it off as being so unique, when almost everything they have come up with is already in ruby on rails.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ruby on Rails
by Almafeta on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:59 in reply to "Ruby on Rails"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Anyone else get the feeling that a ms dev saw Ruby on Rails, and copied almost the exact functionality into vs .net in the form of linq? They've played it off as being so unique, when almost everything they have come up with is already in ruby on rails.


While most "zomg Microsoft steals from everyone I cut myself"-type posts like this have no basis in reality whatsoever, this actually has some fact behind it:

http://rubydotnet.googlegroups.com/web/Home.htm
http://www.codeplex.com/irony

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ruby on Rails
by siride on Tue 20th Nov 2007 03:09 in reply to "RE: Ruby on Rails"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Well, Microsoft's business practice is along those lines. It's not really a bad thing. Other people do the research, bring stuff to market, and ultimately fail, or half-succeed. Microsoft watches, polishes and produces a better product based on what the competition has done. It's great business practice, and it does often produce good consumer products (not all of MS's software is garbage). I wouldn't call it stealing. It is more like refining. And we desperately need that in the software world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ruby on Rails
by segedunum on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:24 in reply to "RE: Ruby on Rails"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

While most "zomg Microsoft steals from everyone I cut myself"-type posts like this have no basis in reality whatsoever, this actually has some fact behind it:

http://rubydotnet.googlegroups.com/web/Home.htm
http://www.codeplex.com/irony


Why are you giving links to Ruby on top of .Net as a response to this?

LINQ == ActiveRecord. End of story.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Ruby on Rails
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Nov 2007 03:51 in reply to "Ruby on Rails"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

MS hired the guy who does this http://www.subsonicproject.com/, which is basically rails type scaffolding for .net.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ruby on Rails
by christianhgross on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:13 in reply to "Ruby on Rails"
christianhgross Member since:
2005-11-15

Do you have any idea what LINQ is about? It's not a R&R rip off. If anything it is an XPath rip off. The idea behind LINQ is the same idea behind XPath. You can select, filter and continue on with LINQ and XPath.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Ruby on Rails
by jayson.knight on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:14 in reply to "RE: Ruby on Rails"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"If anything it [LINQ] is an XPath rip off."

From a technical standpoint, it's more of an XQuery ripoff than XPath. The concepts are very similar, but the implementation is completely different.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ruby on Rails
by miguel on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:47 in reply to "Ruby on Rails"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27


Anyone else get the feeling that a ms dev saw Ruby on Rails, and copied almost the exact functionality into vs .net in the form of linq? They've played it off as being so unique, when almost everything they have come up with is already in ruby on rails.


You seem incredibly confused.

LINQ in fact is the exact opposite of what Ruby on Rails does when it comes to databases. Ruby on Rails advocates the use of ActiveRecord, where the classes are mapped into a database.

LINQ takes the exact opposite approach: the database is at the core of an application and they have provided a way to use a SQL-like language to the database from C#. They do not use an OO to RB mapper, instead they try to get you closer to the bone while giving you compiler provided type checking.

That being said, it would be good if Microsoft incorporated the good ideas of Ruby on Rails into .NET. Hopefully the upcoming ASP.NET MVC will go a long way along those lines.

Miguel.

Reply Parent Score: 2