>>Here, I disagree; it's a strange bastardization of VB-like syntax wrapped about a p-code based threaded interpreter; in my view, it has the feel of Java or Eiffel, substituting a VB-like syntax into the interpreted object language setting. Almost an attempt to conceal its real language roots, wrapping the object language in more familiar keyword names. Unfortunately, while it may make the apparent code expression have a more easily recognized set of operators, their behaviors vary from the comfortable syntactic form of the previous version of the language. The result is considerable frustration, stemming from "What in ^&*$%# is wrong here? It used to work like this..."
>>
>
>A good point. However, I think folks would be in for some pain if they took a lot of their old VB expectatations with them. It is not exact. At the same time, it is fairly close. I think too much is made of the difference. Just my opinion...

I think it's all opinion, John. I'm a little more aware of the language roots than many, and having just been handed the OK to develop a product that was prototyped entirely in VFP, and which I'm reasonably certain is doable and scalable using VFP 7, the new JV made me managing director of IT for their new division, and promptly allocated me a staff of 9 VB programmers for the development project starting 1 January. I'm glad I like a challenge, and my doctor keeps me heavily medicated...

It's going to be done in VFP and C# if I have to pull the fingernails out of the parent company's group managers. You know the problem, since their corporate offices are not far from you. If I survive the next few months without having to plead temporary insanity and begging the forgiveness of the vourt (after all, they're VB programmers, so if a fetus can be terminated in the 2nd term, nerds should be terminate by the 100th trimester with no penalty.

It's not like I'm killing a sentient being or a much-beloved housepet!

>
>
>>
>The syntactic resemblance between C++ and C# is a lot closer than VB 6 is to VB.Net - in fact, an OO language is masquerading in the cloak of VB. That's why the existing VB community is disturbed, much as died-in-the-wool xBASErs were frustrated by VFP and Clipper 5.2 when they appeared - moving into the new paradigm made huge chunks of familiar code stop doing what we expected, and going to the new approach forced us to unlearn lots of comfortable strategies before we could grok how the new stuff acted.
>>
>
>I did not hear a lot of disgruntled people at the summit. I was waiting for a question or two to either Bill Gates or the panel. Nothing was asked. I was shocked...
>

I talked with several on the boat, and after the presentation Friday AM; we picked up some converts, and the best response from someone with a clue was "we'll see what V2 brings?"

>>
>In this respect, moving beginning developers straight to C# ended up letting promising developers become productive faster, as they didn't have habits and instinctive practices to change. The syntax is (opinion) cleaner, more consistent, and equivalently capable (opinion more expressive, making it more capable) to VB.Net. Since both shared a common runtime environment, data representation and interface, and allowed for a common debug environment, we have more developer resources available, since unless a module needs internal maintenance, a different language can subclass, wrap or adorn a CLR-based service or class, at least in theory. C# is a more natural fit for me than VB.Net at least.
>>
>
>
>I agree with you here. If one could make the move to C#, go for it. And who knows, it may be doable. I am definitely going to give it a shot.
>
>
>Great points Ed.
>
>
>And, thank you very much for the Art of War... I received the Fed Ex today!

My pleasure - a great book for business people or anyone in an adversalial system.