I thought the replacement for the old VB would have been VFP.Net. <s> VBers who came to The Fox often remarked they didn't know how good it was, and wished they had come much earlier.

>Absolutely supportive of both Rick and you.
>
>.. what Rick says is certainly true for the kind of tools and libraries that he builds and took his points when he delivered his opinion on C-sharp... back in time at the beginning of the Net setup.
>
>IronPython doesn't offer very much that .Net does not have, but what it offers it does without requiring the complexity that .Net requires. For me, it offers a cleaner development language, where I can concentrate on the meat of what I am doing, rather than the trivia of casting, the various rules of class inheritance (sometimes simpler is better: viz. the iPhone), and so forth. And everyone is different:
>
>... Definitely on you for this one as well. Software development is not an issue of compilers-were-dumb-or-heavy-but-they-have-improved-do-not-need-the-interpreters-of-the-old-time-anyome. It requires both :)
>
>Depending on the kind of application you build and the way you build them. There are smart people on both sides of the equation. I believe however that MS made a strategic-political mistake to let python and other high end interpreters à la ruby to become essentially linux stuff.
>
>The replacement of the old VB is IMHO... python.