But there's a difference between saying, "We don't have the time to implement it this release" vs. "We won't do that because we don't want to pollute the language."

>I think this is a generalization, and a little misleading at that.
>
>Counter-point argument:
>
>C# has anonymous methods, which are a nice productivity feature with .NET generics, especially if you're using custom collections instead of datasets. VB.NET didn't include anonymous methods in VS2005 (and at one point, generics weren't going to be in VB.NET in VS2005). Yes, anonymous methods will be in the next version of VB.NET. Still, when I give talks on .NET generics and need to cover both languages, I need to present two approaches because of VB.NET missing something.
>
>Sure, a VB.NET veteran can come back with an equally valid counter to that. And then back-and-forth. I just think these general statements (and it's sister argument, that the VB.NET team 'gets data' better than the C# team) don't have much value.