Friday May 6th

Thursday May 5th

Comparing ORMs - LINQ-to-X, LightSpeed, EntitySpaces and OpenAccess

How do LINQ-to-SQL, LINQ-to-Entities, LightSpeed, EntitySpaces and OpenAccess stand up when compared to each other? This post discusses what to consider when selecting your O/R Mapper and links to a feature matrix comparing the features provided by each of these products.


Vaguely interesting to glance at but what can this really be worth when it's been put together by one of the providers being compared?

Hi Jerome,

Completely agree with your thoughts here - I was the one who put it together and I knew that would be the first thing I thought as well if I was a visitor. This was partly why I contacted people like Mike @ EntitySpaces to get his input. We decided to create this matrix because of the volume of requests about how LightSpeed compared to other products and after the amount of work that went into that, decided to blog about it. I do understand your views and I really have tried to be as independent in thinking as possible - to the point that on the actual comparison page I draw attention to the fact that we can be considered bias due to our position.

Thanks for your comment.

Updated the post Mike.

I would kick it if it wasn't for the exclusion of NHibernate from the Matrix.

Maybe I am biased, but omitting NHibernate from a comparison of ORM tools is like omitting pencils from a comparison of basic write utensils. It can't be taken very seriously.

@fquednau, That was my same take on it

Thanks for the comparison matrix. You should include LLBLGen to the matrix as well.

NHibernate alone would not look good when added to the matrix anyway (it would, if compared in combination of fluentnhibernate etc). NHibernate It is not a do-it-all tool - It does what it is supposed to do, and it does it very well.

Also, they had some good words about nhibernate in general :D

I'll stick to (fluent)NHibernate, tyvm.

@dotnetchris, @fquendnau, @mxmissle There is some comment on NHibernate, but it's not in the matrix, that's right. As duckie alludes to, if you're willing to find all the bits you can pretty much do anything you want with NHibernate. That's cool and there is some great work there, but part of the point of the matrix was highlighting the "out of the box" experience which may not give a fair view of NHibernate - people know what they're getting into with NHibernate and might not see grabbing all the bits as an issue. I had hoped that the block about NHibernate would explain why it's not included but perhaps I need to re-word it as I'm seeing a lot of comments about it.

@duckie Thanks for your comment

After reading your responses to us on your blog it's quite possible you're getting alot of comments about NHibernate just due to the subset of us as DNK members fall into the overall .NET developer pool. The fact you accepted all of our comments and made efforts to address them reverses my choice to not kick this. The last blog I saw that had received criticism (albeit much more substantial but due to them earning it) entirely shut off their commenting system and removed all comments from every post period.

You brought up a very common point about the FOSS market more often than it's not for it to offer out of box support to achieve a specific task, generally its made to be flexible that when you pick all of the pieces you need that it will solve any problem.

Thanks for your comment dotnetchris. I was a little hesitant about pushing this post out there as I knew it would incite considerable debate (as you would have seen on the matrix page, I've avoided performance tests for similar reasons - somebody will always find something wrong! :-) but I do want this to be an open dialog. Appreciate your comments.

visit my blog

Commenting on Stories is limited for now and will open up to those recommended by the community. Learn how
Loading DotNetKicks...
brought to you by the Kicks Network