Argh! The author goes through the trouble of implementing his (admittedly simple) example in four separate ORMs, and then refuses to even say which one he liked best for the scenario! The first comment points this out and he responds with "it depends", followed by "So in short, the one that works the best is the one that best fits your current requirements." Thanks! Since one could reasonably argue they all fit almost any requirements set (except Linq over SQL, which only works for SQL Server), why bother reviewing them? My own advice is for readers to make their own slightly-more-complicated example and implement it themselves in each system, just to get a feel. "[F]its your current requirements" is an absolutely minimum--it's still likely you'll prefer the coding style and maintenance requirements of one over the others (they are all quite different), and David should have at least shared which was HIS preference and why.

Hi Jesse,
My main aim for writing the posts was to give myself (and any one else that stumbled across the series) a quick guide on how to set up each ORM, and then how to do some basic operations with each. It was not meant to be a review of each product.

I deliberately tried to avoid drawing big conclusions about which is best, because of how simple the example is and because I haven't used all the tools in real projects. Sorry I couldn't give you specific answers to you question :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset that you didn't try to declare a winner or say which is best--I'm knocking you for not giving your considered OPINION after having tried them all. As a blogger, that's your sacred duty! ;)

Haha, point taken :D I'll try be more opinionated next time. ;)