blocks|key|3793338|text|我不认为这本身就是一个讨厌的想法。只是人们不喜欢它的实现。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3793339|http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/|offset|length|3793340|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url^0|0|0|25|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@$D|O|E|P|1|Q]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|C]]]]

I don't think it's a hate for the idea of it per se. It's just that people don't like the implementation of it.

<a href="http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://efvote.wufoo.com/forms/ado-net-entity-framework-vote-of-no-confidence/</a>

blocks|key|5204269|text|实际上，一旦你开始深入研究它，LTE对于企业级框架来说是完全无用的。几乎没有继承支持的事实(在LTS中也是如此)造成了大量的冗余代码。另外，我将回到LTS+(Linq+to+SQL)，因为它实际上允许您通过属性而不是文件来定义映射。LTE仅适用于外部文件。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5204270|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Actually, once you start delving into it, LTE is completely useless for enterprise level frameworks. The fact that there is very little inheritance support (in LTS as well) makes for a lot of redundant code. Also, I will be moving back to LTS (Linq to SQL) because it actually allows you to define mappings via Attributes instead of a File. LTE only works with an external file.

blocks|key|2949065|text|Linq+to+Entity+hate是理所当然的。这个产品失败的任何目的都比GU在他的博客上用它做的糟糕的演示更复杂。EF还远远没有准备好进入黄金时间。在.BLOAT的世界里，微软就是不能保证数据的正确性，他们似乎每次都会改变数据范式。FoxPro使用相同的基本数据核心已经有20年了。考虑到SQL+Server使用了大量的VFP数据技术，也许MSFT可以从一些有用的东西中学习一些关于操纵数据和以数据为中心的语言的知识。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2949066|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

The Linq to Entity hate is much deserved. This product fails any purpose more complex then the lame demos GU uses it for on his blog. EF is far from ready for prime time. Microsoft just can't get data correct in the .BLOAT world they seem to changes data paradigm every time the wind blows. FoxPro has been around for 20 years with the same basic data core. Given SQL Server uses much of VFP data technology perhaps MSFT could learn a bit about manipulating data and data centric languages from something that worked.

blocks|key|5204304|text|我非常赞同Linq+to+Entities的原则，以及实体框架的一般概念，但我对其当前的版本有所保留。不过，我坦率地承认，除了自我教育和非常小的方式外，我没有使用过它。灵活性似乎还没有达到，但我相信它会到来的。一位MS技术传播者(很棒的职位头衔)告诉我，EF是未来MS的战略选择。假设是这样的话，我只能看到这个竞技场的情况会变得更好。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5204305|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

I am quite sold on the priciples of Linq to Entities, and the Entity Framework in general, but I do have reservations about its current incarnation. I do freely admit to not having used it in anything more than a self-educational and very small way, though. The level of flexibility doesn't seem to be there yet but I'm sure it will come. I was told by one of the MS technology evangelists (great job title) that EF was the MS strategic choice for the future. Assuming this is the case, I can only see things getting better in this arena.

blocks|key|727007|text|也可能会有一些“第二名”的敌意。微软进入L2E市场的时间很晚，我自己在大约三年前就开始对对象关系管理感兴趣了，而在这一点上，微软已经无处可寻。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|727008|我们中的许多人已经花时间学习了另一种对象关系管理(例如NHibernate)，并且已经习惯了某种级别和类型的可用功能，我认为这在L2E中还不是很明显。|727009|老实说，这种“第二名”的敌意并不是老新闻，我不知道为什么微软不花更多的时间来支持已经存在的解决方案，我们已经在NAnt+->+MSBuild和NUnit+->+MsTest中看到了这一切，如果他们只是接受一个更好的和成熟的解决方案之一，并努力支持它，而不是一直酝酿自己的解决方案，这将节省每个人的时间和精力。|727010|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

There might also be a bit of "second place" animosity as well. MS are very late to market with L2E, I myself became interested in ORM about three years ago or so and MS was nowhere to be seen at this point.

A lot of us have already spent the time learning another ORM (such as NHibernate) and are used to a certain level and type of functionality being available and I this isn't evident in L2E yet. 

This "second place" animosity isn't old news to be honest I don't know why MS don't spend more time supporting solutions already in place, we've seen this all before with NAnt -> MSBuild and NUnit -> MsTest, it would save everyone a lot of time and effort if they just accepted one of the better and mature solutions and endeavoured to support that as opposed to brewing their own all the time.

blocks|key|5204441|text|我要补充的是，TPT继承的LTE实现简直就是犯罪。请参阅我的问题here。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|5204442|当我这样做的时候，我相信许多published+EF+pundits至少在一定程度上是同谋。我还没有找到任何关于EF的发布材料，这些材料警告基类型的查询。如果我要在我拥有的模型上尝试它，SQL+Server会简单地放弃，但有一个例外。|5204443|5204444|语句的某些部分嵌套得太深了。重写查询或将其分解为较小的查询。|blockquote|5204445|5204446|5204447|我很想重写查询，但LTE+as免除了我的负担。谢谢(%5E不)|5204448|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4126668/when-quering-over-a-base-type-why-does-the-ef-provider-generate-all-those-union-a|1|http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=entity%2Bframework%2Bin%2Bbooks&x=0&y=0^0|W|4|0|0|E|K|1|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|X|8|@]|9|@$A|Y|B|Z|1|10]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|11|8|@]|9|@$A|12|B|13|1|14]]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|15|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|G|3|H|5|I|7|16|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|17|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|6|7|18|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|L|3|M|5|6|7|19|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|N|3|-4|5|6|7|1A|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|O|$P|$5|Q|R|S|C|$T|U]]|V|$5|Q|R|S|C|$T|W]]]]

I would add that LTE implementation of TPT inheritance is nothing short of criminal. See my question <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4126668/when-quering-over-a-base-type-why-does-the-ef-provider-generate-all-those-union-a">here</a>.

And while I'm at it, I believe that the many <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&amp;field-keywords=entity+framework+in+books&amp;x=0&amp;y=0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">published EF pundits</a> are at least in part complicit. I have yet to find any published material on EF that cautions against queries of base types. If I were to try it on the model that I have, SQL Server simply gives up with the exception.

<blockquote>
 Some part of your SQL statement is
 nested too deeply. Rewrite the query
 or break it up into smaller queries.
</blockquote>

I would love to rewrite the query, but LTE as absolved me of that burden. Thanks (^not)

I've noticed that there seems to be quite a bit of hostility towards Linq To Entities particularly from the Alt.Net folks. I understand the resistance to more "drag and drop" programming, but from my understanding, Linq To Entities doesn't require it. 

We're currently using Linq to SQL, and we are using the DBML document to define it (once you get more than a dozen or so tables, the designer is pretty useless.)

So why wouldn't the same approach work for Linq To Entities?

Why all the Linq To Entities Hate?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

我注意到，对于Linq to Entities似乎有相当多的敌意，特别是来自Alt.Net的人。我理解对更多“拖放”编程的抵制，但据我所知，Linq to Entities并不需要它。我们目前正在使用Linq to SQL，并且我们正在使用DBML文档来定义它(一旦获得十几个左右的表，设计器就没有什么用处了)。那么为什么同样的方法不适用于Linq To Entities呢？

问为什么所有的Linq To实体都讨厌？
EN

回答 6

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问为什么所有的Linq To实体都讨厌？EN

回答 6

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问为什么所有的Linq To实体都讨厌？
EN