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 285415
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ruby on Rails
by segedunum on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:24 UTC 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

RE[4]: Ruby on Rails
by duckie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Ruby on Rails"
duckie Member since:
2006-04-10

LINQ info:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa904594.aspx

"It extends C# and Visual Basic with native language syntax for queries and provides class libraries to take advantage of these capabilities"

Microsoft already created the providers "LINQ to SQL", "LINQ to XML" + more.

You can create any provider you want, see an example here http://blogs.msdn.com/hartmutm/default.aspx "A LINQ provider for RDF files".

LINQ != activerecord.

Reply Parent Score: 1