A little break from my "LINQ to SQL tips" series of posts. A recent vote of no confidence on a related component orchestrated by community activists reminded me of many questions I have fielded and how the design team approached the design of LINQ to SQL (and also core LINQ APIs and C# language changes for LINQ). Nah, that’s for another day when it is cloudy and raining. Instead, let’s talk about my recent dream. Or rather, a nightmare!

But first turn off your flame throwers, grab a cup of coffee and don't take this too seriously ...

I had this Q&A nightmare about the component I worked on - LINQ to SQL. I am the "expert" providing the non-answers.

Q: How do I use blah pattern with LINQ to SQL (e.g. blah = ActiveRecord if you don't like abstract concepts)
A: You don't!

Q: I think I wasn't sufficiently clear. I stood on one leg and when the phase of the moon was 64% of full, it worked but now that the moon is waxing further, your foo method throws bar exception when I do baz. How do I just get that bit working with LINQ to SQL.
A: You don't

Q: (By now quite upset) Do you even understand blah?
A: (Forced to be less terse) Yes. We considered blah and decided against it for a set of reasons listed below. That pattern is not consistent with the core design assumptions and recommended usage patterns with LINQ to SQL.

Q: (Now a full-force verdict) I hearby find you guilty of violating the implicit agreement to solve the world hunger problem using blah methodology. Hence, what you produced is useless, evil and must be stopped at once. Any software built using your component will accelerate global warming and cause all glaciers to melt at once. And of course, it will irreparably damage the young and impressionable minds of generations of developers leaving them utterly useless for anything except writing some old fashioned code.
A: Thank you for your interest in LINQ to SQL err blah.

Nightmare aside, (what) were we thinking? Stay tuned for that ... 

P.S. 

1. This release includes backward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established by the Public Flagellation by Community Act of 2008. These backward-looking statements generally can be identified by phrases such as "did", "was", "thought" ... and by the absence of "will" "fix" "in future release".

2. I just wanted to get you objects from the table. I swear. Nothing more than that!

3. Scott B., if you are reading this, peace! I won't let you drag me on to the stage at another PDC BoF and I won't fix anything either. I can't. I don't drive LINQ to SQL anymore. I just drive righteous developers crazy J