LINQ is the query language that's used in the 101 LINQ Examples, it's not the "compact fluent syntax" you're referring to of calling IEnumerable<T> extension methods directly, that's not the "Language-Integrated Query" that LINQ stands for, the purpose of Microsoft LINQ Examples was to showcase how to use LINQ.

The purpose of each language comparison was to achieve the same result of each example, but in the idiomatic style of that language.

Yes I both read the msdn examples docs many years ago when they came out when first learning LINQ, and clicked through and read them again in your provided links of your project docs to confirm your implementations.

I thought there were two possible things happening here. I took the charitable interpretation and assumed you may not be familiar with the fluent syntax nor the fact it is the standard syntax. Or possibly you may not be familiar with the fact that those examples are meant mainly for instructing the concepts underlying each function and are not best practices. I had all of that in mind when I wrote the following.

> The documentation when introducing concepts it used the SQL syntax. As anyone who has familiarity with the tools uses the fluent syntax. Yes you can say you used samples from the docs, but those are for teaching. You can't compare them to hand written code using a compact syntax

The other interpretation, the one I avoided was that you were not looking for a fair comparison for programmers to learn from. Your response makes it harder for me to ignore this second interpretation.

If I were the owner of a project and looking for a fair comparison, I'd be happy if someone let me know I wasn't using the correct practices in C# and would want to update my project to reflect that. Possibly creating an implementation in C# of what LINQ actually looks like in use. Instead you're digging in deeper behind the "that's what's in MSDN examples documentation".

To put it directly, if you want a fair comparison between languages for people to learn from, and make judgement from, then make it so. Don't use the antiquated SQL syntax.

Please make this a helpful project for people and use the de facto standard syntax. There are differences between languages and a fair comparison would let people learn them.

You shouldn't need any charitable explanation or imagination to be able to read the title and purpose of each project that's clearly explained in the docs.

Your criticism tantamounts to:

> Your 6-7 year old "C#'s 101 LINQ comparisons" series is using the actual "C#'s 101 LINQ Examples", Unfair!

Then go ahead and produce your own series, instead of wasting your time and energy on criticizing others efforts.

The fact that you appear to be getting emotional and are resorting to personal jabs means it's probably time to end this discussion.

I've tried to to explain it to you, other people in threads on this page have tried to explain it to you, the msdn documents as well themselves explain it. At this point there is nothing left to do. You're going to hold onto the "it's in msdn so it's fair" line of justification. It was good chatting with you.

You're complaining that the projects does what it set out to do, which is your issue, so go ahead and create the series that does what you want - I promise I wont tell you to change it to suit my tastes.

The idiosyncratic special syntax was misguided and fortunately is largely abandoned. Alas we are stuck with the reserved keywords forever.

Also fortunately, it's not totally abandoned. You can have my `let` when you pry it from my cold fingers.

The "idiosyncratic special syntax" you're referring to is called LINQ.