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 285348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ruby on Rails
by Almafeta on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:59 UTC 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[3]: Ruby on Rails
by miguel on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Ruby on Rails"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

I know I can always count on Segedunum to get his facts wrong:


LINQ == ActiveRecord. End of story.


I already commented on the vastly different approaches to those two.

As a complement, in general, there are a number of ActiveRecord implementations for .NET that you can use or variations on the theme.

But LINQ is not such a variation.

Another posted commented on LINQ and XPath and XQuery. Although you can certainly do everything XQuery can do with LINQ for doing XML processing, LINQ is not limited to XML.

The "XQuery-replacement" facade is basically using LINQ with a couple of XML construction and query classes. But LINQ is much more powerful, the pieces that make it up are the pieces that are bringing functional language features C#.

Miguel.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Ruby on Rails
by gonzo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Ruby on Rails"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

LINQ == ActiveRecord. End of story.

Wow, this is so wrong. LINQ is FULLY integrated in the languages, it is part of the syntax. That is why it's called "LANGUAGE INTEGRATED.."

You don't understand it and some research on the topic of LINQ is strongly recommended.

Edited 2007-11-20 19:06

Reply Parent Score: 1