Yes, but the announced plan (by Paul Vick, who was on the VB team at the time) in 2007 was that the VB that shipped with VS2010 was to be a dynamic VB, codenamed VBx. That didn't happen; so will we see it, perhaps as the language underlying Kittyhawk? If anyone knows, they aren't telling. <s>

>Isn't it in the list under CLI languages?
>
>Snippet:
>
>VBx: A dynamic version of VB.NET built on top of the DLR. See VBScript and VBA as this could be thought of being used like a Managed VBScript (though so far this name has not been applied to this) and could be used to replace VBA as well.
>
>
>
>>From the list, I see that VBx (the dynamic VB that was planned, in 2007, to be VB10) disappeared, unless I've missed something.
>>
>>Will we ever see it?
>>
>>>Here's a partial list of .NET languages.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_languages
>>>
>>>>Of course, as I point out to Craig in another post, .Net of today is not the .Net of 2001. Languages being created on the .Net of 2010 could not have been developed on the .Net of 2001, and only with great difficulty on the .Net of 2005.
>>>>
>>>>To think that .Net consists of C# and VB.Net (and maybe F# for the functional static programmers) is to miss the point of how .Net has evolved in the past 5 years. The speed difference between static and dynamic languages is basically eliminated by innovations in the DLR, based on real-world testing. So now it's down to what language does the job better for a given individual, in a given context: there is no more straight-jacket.
>>>>
>>>>The predictable result (from systems theory) is that differentiation in languages will lead to consolidation into sub-species. It will be interesting to watch over the next 10 years to see what language emerges in the dynamic + data sub-species.
>>>>
>>>>Hank