On The Insider: Cyrus FamilyOn the Loss of Bus Driver
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 27 of 31:
Next »
« Previous
.NET sucks at database
ADO 2.0 looked like a great idea. They were finally gonna capture the capability Java has had for year with a truly abstract database layer. I fire it up and give it a go. First, I need to connect to Oracle. So I did through MSN. I am suddenly swamped by the three horrors of .NET: ODBC, ADO 1.0, and COM database access. Egad! I don't care for all this. So I go to Oracle's site. There I find demos and stuff on how to do it. Problem is, their ADO 2.0 is in beta. Beta! Client says "heck no" to beta.

Okay, client #2 wants MySQL. I go through Visual Studios database tools. Ooops! Wizard has no support for MySQL. After looking on the MySQL site I find out that there is no way to add it as an option since Microsoft locked the wizard settngs down. What the heck? In Eclipse I was able to connect to virtually any database and with Visual Waste 2005 I am stuck with stupid SQL Server.

I guess its a Microsoft only world with .NET. I think Ill just stick with Java and enjoy diversity and ease over that mess.

And one last thing: why the heck is VS2005 so freakin slow? Eclipse wrote everything using SWT and it runs several magnitudes quicker. With VS2005, I can actually watch it paint the toolbars! And worse yet, don't even try getting Subversion working 100% with VS2005. Sure, the is Ankh but VS2005 actually HIDES files! And if you remove a project or solution its still on the harddrive!
Posted by: OhMyGosh   Posted on: 05/31/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

DB Unit Testing  SQLServer | 05/31/06
The pros do NOT use a database ONLY available on one bug ridden OS  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
Buwahahahaha  No_Ax_to_Grind | 05/31/06
Typically just people without arguments, you insult when you don't have an  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
Now see, DonnieBoy, if only you'd said...  Joel R | 06/01/06
Disagree  mighetto | 04/06/07
Interesting.  Joel R | 06/14/07
Donnieboy...oh cluless wonder  marksashton | 05/31/06
Yes, a lot of cluless people use SQL Server for small non-mission critical  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
My God man!!!  BFD | 05/31/06
If you look at the ammount of important data actually stored, SQL Server is  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
Alternative, yes!  MISsupport | 05/31/06
Well, alternatives to a point, but security should be number one.  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
Yes, security is important but....  MISsupport | 05/31/06
Yes, the Linux ecosystem has yet to develop, and many must use Widows for  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
"Many must use Widows"  jorwell | 06/01/06
And then there are the X-Widows  jorwell | 06/02/06
I totally agree donnie!  Yensi717 | 12/07/06
Both Are Free  mighetto | 04/06/07
Sorry, not right  qhris@... | 05/31/06
There are a lot of compatibility problems with SQL Server. It only runs on  DonnieBoy | 05/31/06
With Virtualization SQL Server runs everyware  mighetto | 04/06/07
I'm confused  quantumstate | 06/01/06
DonnieBoy, it's time to own up  jorwell | 06/01/06
Lets own up, Microsoft is now open source  mighetto | 04/06/07
RDBMS  JoeApprentice | 05/31/06
.NET sucks at database  OhMyGosh | 05/31/06
Thanks for the Heads Up  mighetto | 04/06/07
Now, see, DonnieBoy,  Joel R | 06/01/06
Pros dont use Access  kokuryu | 06/08/07
If Project Success Depends on MS Tools ...  dhettinger | 06/11/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement