> Fucking SQL. I don't want to learn your stupid DSL.
I really like one change in LINQ syntax (and probably various other SQL-inspired DSLs), which is to invert the basic query structure, enabling better IDE support:
from thing in things ... (yay, now my editor knows what a "thing" is and can provide better code completion and type checking for the remainder of this deeply-nested behemoth of a query that probably should be expressed as hundreds of simple statements instead of cramming half of the day's work into a single "statement" with no obvious rules for indentation because, after all, run-on sentences are notoriously annoying to read and generally should be avoided).
That alone is worth investing a few minutes to learn something new.
I really like one change in LINQ syntax (and probably various other SQL-inspired DSLs), which is to invert the basic query structure, enabling better IDE support:
from thing in things ... (yay, now my editor knows what a "thing" is and can provide better code completion and type checking for the remainder of this deeply-nested behemoth of a query that probably should be expressed as hundreds of simple statements instead of cramming half of the day's work into a single "statement" with no obvious rules for indentation because, after all, run-on sentences are notoriously annoying to read and generally should be avoided).
That alone is worth investing a few minutes to learn something new.