Another wonderful junk post from the constantly confused fellows at codebetter.com - spreading FUD faster than you can say "unit test"!

Programming is incredibly powerful, but in the wrong hands, it can create a nightmare.

FTFY

And ROR is a joke.

> Since ASP.NET MVC is so young, it's hard to tell what v1.0 will include, but we're not really that far away from an RTM (granted, out-of-band support, think ASP.NET AJAX before .NET 3.5). The immature/grassroot server/user controls, state persistance (e.g.: viewstate), and validation stories are what concern me the most that in some aspects it may be a step backwards.

I'm fairly certain we'll see none of these. Complex server controls simply won't be there. Apparently all the "smart" people do nothing but use simple textboxes and dropdowns for all their forms. Viewstate is hated by those doofs at Code "Better", and for some reason they have some major pull with MS. Validation that approaches anything in WebForms is a pipe dream.

MVC? MVC? I was using MVC in apps 12 years ago!!

Even Ruby is 13 years old!

Just watch out for a couple of guys in t-shirts, thick glasses and messy hair showing up at your door :)

> If your SQL is getting very complicated, it's likely your logic should be moved out of SQL and into your business layer. SQL should be for storing data, not complex business logic.

Sure, I'll just take my tables which have 1,000,000 entries each and do some LINQ on them. I'm sure that'll work out well. I mean, who needs indexes when you've got NHibernate?

I'll say it once, I'll say it again: Relational databases were created by computer scientists. ORMs were originally created by Java developers.

> 5. You shouldn't be writing SQL anyway! It is called an ORM. Lookup NHibernate, SubSonic, LLBLGen, LINQ2SQL, and pick the one that works best for you.

Am I the only .NET developer in the universe that writes SQL more complicated than trivial CRUD?

fist!!!!

This article is simply idiotic.

A CodeGroupThink member making a proper analysis of a situation? That doesn't happen.

I'm surprised he didn't blame type casting as the cause of the problems.

Fr-agile doesn't work either, but who's counting anyways?

The problem with ORMs is that data persist (yes kiddies, the word data is a plural), and applications change. If you decide to store your data in a SQL database, then it behooves you to know SQL, and know it well. Five years from now (or whenever), when you're not using the .NET platform to access that data, having the data retrieval logic stuck in an obsolete platform could become a problem.

I think it's ludicrous to use an ORM for basic CRUD - really, how hard is it to wrie a SELECT statement, versus what it takes to write the scaffolding for Hibernate? It's also ludicrous to use them for advanced querying, since the DSLs that tools like Hibernate provide are much too simple compared to what SQL offers (figures, since SQL was written by computer scientists, and Hibernate was written by Java programmers).

Of all the programming related languages I've learned, SQL, along with C, are the only two I still use on a regular basis after 13 years in the industry. I guess I should put perl in there somewhere.

I've given up on Jeff. He's not especially bright, and his readership is even less so.

I have a hard time believing this. I'm fairly certain static typing is the root of all evil, and that Ruby on Rails will lead mankind to utopia.

Blech. Using the database for sorting and paging sucks. It works for small sites with little data, but once you have a larger data set, it quickly falls apart.

If this makes the main page, I'll scream.