Re:LINQ Ruined My Favorite Interview Question
by hvidgaard on Friday July 12, 2013 @03:40AM
(#6031387)
I get what you're saying, I understand it, and I agree with the pitfalls. But I really really really don't agree that one should avoid LINQ. Sure if you don't understand how it works, and how it impact the performance, you should use it less. But don't try and drag the language down because you find it difficult. LINQ is easily one of the best things that have happened to a mainstream language in a long time, and if used right it produce highly maintainable code, that is very easy to read and understand. A lot of data manipulation really is done on sets, and LINQ makes it a breeze to do.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:LINQ Ruined My Favorite Interview Question
by corresation on Friday July 12, 2013 @09:36AM
(#6032474)
But don't try and drag the language down because you find it difficult.
Oh give me a break. My exact complaint about LINQ is the opposite -- that it makes expensive operations seem simple, which with all innovations in language means that mediocre programmers will start abusing it in all codebases.
LINQ has a place. To say that one should be using it "all the time", however, is exactly as I said -- a canary in a coal mine. The only time I've ever come across the extensive use of LINQ it has been in horrific code.
So I'm guess you haven't done any programming with the reactive extensions yet?
Re:LINQ Ruined My Favorite Interview Question
by corresation on Friday July 12, 2013 @03:11PM
(#6034502)
And why would you guess that? Because I don't consider LINQ of Rx observers being a magic cure-all?
In fact, LINQ on Rx is a symptom of the classic LINQ issue -- don't have subscriber or source filtering, or coherent, useful events -- simply broadcast everything and through the magic, free filtering of LINQ all is solved in the consumer.