[useerup]

This comment make me question if you really have any experience with LINQ. If you had, you would not make a comment where you seem to think that LINQ is used only for data access.

LINQ is (at the most basic level) list comprehensions done better. It is functional programming for the imperative C# programmers. It has the potential to remove most/all loops and make the code more readable in the process.

[llm_nerd]

>This comment make me question if you really have any experience with LINQ

The classic fallback.

>If you had, you would not make a comment where you seem to think that LINQ is used only for data access.

List comprehension is data access. Accessing sets in memory is data access.

>If you had, you would not make a comment where you seem to think that LINQ is used only for data access.

It has the potential, and almost the certainty, of allowing one to thoroughly shoot themselves in the foot. See without the "magic" of LINQ the grotesqueness of many patterns of data access (which, as previously mentioned, includes in memory structures. Pretty bizarre that anyone actually in this field thinks this only applies to databases, or that only DBs are "data") would lead one to rethink.

LINQ is almost always a bad indicator. It is actually a fantastic thing in one off scripts and hack type code, but when it appears in production code, I would say 90%+ of the time it is absolutely gross, but it hides how gross it actually is.

[eddythompson80]

> LINQ is almost always a bad indicator. It is actually a fantastic thing in one off scripts and hack type code, but when it appears in production code, I would say 90%+ of the time it is absolutely gross, but it hides how gross it actually is.

Yeah, you definitely have no idea what LINQ, or an list, even is.

[tester756]

How is this gross then?

It is just a slightly slower than e.g fors, so unless this is hot path, then it is basically not relevant meanwhile it improves readability of the code