You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Query Language or Method calls: A matter of taste

Bill Blogs in C# — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:52:57 GMT

My last post (which was too long ago), generated question on whether I prefer the query language or the

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Vladimir Kelman — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:39:36 GMT

@Jon,

A first "query expression" example, with its two "from" lines one after another, looks surprisingly similar to Scala for expression syntax. Inside Scala's "for" you can also do it: select files from a directory, select lines from files, filter results and then use it inside {} block of "for". That's one of examples in "Programming in Scala" booksites.artima.com/programming_in_scala

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Stuart Caborn — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:25:51 GMT

It is interesting that most of the usages in LINQ (>90%$) use the sugar free syntax. It just seems more natural in many situations. It could be that for a C# developer there is less of an impedance mismatch when you look at the traditional syntax over a query expression.

I certainly find I have to think a little harder about LINQ which is written using the expression syntax.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Mike Strobel — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:21:48 GMT

It's funny, I originally used query expressions because they were so heavily advertised and they had a certain novelty. Nowadays, I often forget they even exist. I use LINQ all the time, but I virtually never use query expressions unless I really need to declare an intermediate with 'let'. Once you get comfortable with the standard LINQ operators, you can leverage the framework much more effectively (and often more efficiently) using the extension methods.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Andrew — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:48:16 GMT

I've heard Luke Hoban saying that query expressions were introduced in C# because the learning curve for LINQ still was quite high.

And to that point, I'm really interested in the percentage of those who use expressions ("from .. in .. select ..") among the whole bunch of us using LINQ.

Cause from what I can see, it's just a tiny fraction of "expressionists". Maybe it could have been a wiser choice to introduce LINQ and *then* consider changing the language??

Just curious. I might be wrong, of course.

Arjan`s World

Arjan`s World — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:55:00 GMT

Pingback from Arjan`s World

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Omer Mor — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:07:14 GMT

I agree. This could be a perfect refactoring tip in ReSharper.

Today (for example) it suggests to invert "if" statements, if it can make the code shorter and less indented.

It could easily find LINQ expressions that could be shortened by their equivalent query expressions, and offer to convert them for you.

JetBrains: The ball is in your court :-)

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Justin Davies — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:30:52 GMT

As you say it depends on the complexity, but pretty simple ones still sometimes look better with the sugar. For example take the following which has a mix of styles:

return (from d in descendants where d.Key == descendantKey select d.Value).Single();

in dot notation:

return descendants.Where(d => d.Key == descendantKey).Select(d => d.Value).Single();

Either works for me, but I'm pretty sure the first is more readable to all skill levels of LINQ.

Marc has a great point in that anything outside the sugar can easily be missed if you rely on it... I'm thinking perhaps I should always code in dot notation first and if ugly see if I can then sugar it, rather than the other way around.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Vincent Croquette — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:24:49 GMT

Thanks Marc

Usually I just need to maintain the application and try to respect the same coding techniques as for the rest of the application.

I'd love to change all those FindAll(delegate) but it is not worth the effort

Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #260

Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #260 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:51:27 GMT

Pingback from Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #260

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Marc Gravell — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:33:01 GMT

@Vincent - don't forget that you can use LINQ (to objects, at least) with .NET 2.0 (as long as you are using C# 3.0) via things like LINQBridge.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Marc Gravell — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:31:30 GMT

@CQ - the "+1" made me laugh ;-p

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Marc Gravell — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:30:22 GMT

Agreed. Add to that the number of overloads and additional methods (both standard and bespoke) that can *only* be called through dot syntax.

From what I've seen, people with too much query-syntax affinity regularly miss out on a simple, elegant way to do something simply because query-syntax can't express it. Even simple *core* things like Skip/Take.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Almond — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:28:50 GMT

I think some of this is from the fact that alot of developers introduction to LINQ is through LINQ to SQL examples. I think this sometimes leads some developers to write all LINQ code like they would an SQL statement.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Fowl — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:18:57 GMT

Wow, it's the exact opposite for me, where query expressions seem like black magic, whereas a method call seems understandable.

I could use that aspect without reading any documentation outside of intellisense, yay for discoverablility. :)

Of course I don't know SQL, and only use LINQ to Objects.

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

CQ — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:06:34 GMT

I agree, I see a fair amount of the more verbose syntax from fellow developers for such simple queries and at a glance (at least to me) the intention isn't as clear.

I tried to +1 but I couldn't find the vote button. Oh yeah this isn't SO.

You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

DotNetKicks.com — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:42:55 GMT

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

re: You don't have to use query expressions to use LINQ

Vincent Croquette — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:33:31 GMT

A new developer recently joined the team I work for and explained me he did not like Linq because he does not trust what's running behind the curtain.

He does not like declarative programming either (attributes...) and prefers to have everything 'under control' imperatively.

I think you get much more confidence in a technology when you start understanding it rather than just knowing it. This is the main reason why I like books such as "C# in depth", they allow me to understand how things work and not just write the code from the book blindly.

Three things I'm sure about still

Parts of my code are really clearer with Linq and I really miss it when I need it on <3.5 projects

Other developers from other environments to whom I show Linq (to objects and entities) find it really neat

Never forget someone else might have to read your code in the future...