Not simply: it uses languages which require attention to matters (is it static? is it virtual? is it public? can I overload it?) in a way that other static languages (e.g., Boo, Nemerle) do not. A static language with type inference, duck typing, an ExpandoObject that is bindable, and optional parameters (the last 2 directly available in .Net 4, of course) can be very friendly to developers who have no taste for learning unneeded complexity, when they are already experts in something just as complex, i.e., their domain. Add in to-the-point datahandling (Microsoft.Data.Database is a help there, I think), and it's a slam-dunk for that market.

While C# and VB.Net are highly evolved languages in terms of differentiation (all the different things that can be done), they are under-evolved in terms of consolidation into what's needed, and what's not, in writing business apps. They are good languages, in fact, for writing languages that do get to the point. <s> But are they really needed, even for that? We'll see: Rodrigo has stated that Boo will reach 1.0 only when it can be written in Boo. It's at 0.97, so my guess is that what he's working on now (better support for generics and metaprogramming) are the pieces he sees as being needed to close that gap. That's evolution at work.

From my perspective, this is an interesting time to be watching that evolution of languages. Systems theory says that differentiation is followed by consolidation (as the patterns become known). That is already happening. Watching it unfold over the next 5 to 10 years will be fun.

Hank

>Are you saying this simply because it uses a static language?
>
>
>> What it does not do, and what it could have done, is open up the world of complex domain software development to domain experts, in the same way that VFP did (and still does).
>>
>>As for the future? Well, as we should all know, where there is sin, there always has to be the possibility of redemption. <s>
>>