[dragonwriter]

> This reminds me .NET's short lived Linq to SQL;

"Short lived"? Its still alive, AFAIK, and the more popular newer thing for the same use case, Linq to Enntities, has the same salient features but (because it is tied to Entity Framework and not SQL Server specific) is more broadly usable.

[yarg]

It was in 3.5 only.

If they've replaced it with something else in the last decade and a half that does not mean that they didn't get rid of it, or that it wasn't short lived.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adon...

[LeonB]

Yeh. Linq to sql was a much more lightweight extension than EF, and was killed due to internal warring at MS.

Database people were investing a lot of time and energy on doing things “properly” with EF, and this scrappy little useful tool, linq to sql, was seen as a competitor.

[yarg]

I quite liked it in the 5 minutes it existed - it was just really easy to use.

[plusplusungood]

LINQ is not the same as LINQ-to-SQL. The former is a language feature, the latter a library (one of many) that uses that feature.

[yarg]

Did you reply to the wrong person? Because I'm not the guy that didn't know that.