Thanks for the video but I actually don't want to find myself writing sql queries on the code side. Sometimes I can add a new feature to a class and then I need to change or update the sql query that I defined as dapper query in my repository. btw I know the dapper's power.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="285">4:45</a> Best practice/Performance tip: return a boolean or an Error object instead of throwing an exception. For methods that return valid values, such as GetByIdAsync, you can use OneOf or ErrorOr libraries to return an explicit "not found" instead of using null as an implicit case.
I haven’t used Dapper in 15 years, it’s barely changed, it certainly isn’t a EF CORE killer, but is worth knowing for the few scenarios it does a better job than EF CORE
Thanks very much Amichai for this video. I'd like you make video how is your vscode settings, add-ons, settings, tips e etc. I notice that your vscode look like vim editor. Again, thank you.
@@PatricSjoeoe I did some speed tests last year, and had the same conclusion. However, when working on a bad database, you might still prefer to use raw sql over objects. No significant difference in memory usage or things like that.
Hi, Amichai. Thanks for the video. Can you say please is it would be a good idea to change our insert and select queries using string interpolation for naming columns using nameof(Product.Name) for example instead of hardcoding column titles in query string?
Thanks for the video. In the work environment, do you use postgre SQL or MSSQL? I ask it because in macOS you cannot use the MSSQL. I wonder how do you handle it?
In this series I'm using postgres (as part of this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JiJeZOHx0ow.html), but mssql can be set up in a similar fasion
Sorry, but Dapper went out of fashion 15 years ago. And so did the bad practice of writing non-parameterised raw SQL into code. EF provides a much better way of doing things.
@@jcorrify I don't think any of my clients would thank me for imposing 15 year out of date tech debt on them. Good luck with doing that to your clients!
@@ddrsdiego I have no issue with using primary constructors. I hate mapping DI parameters to corresponding private fields. Only thing they should fix is making the parameters read-only.