>If you like C that much, why didn't you elect to go with C++ or Java??

Wow.

>The power of C++???? First, if the power of C++ was that important - wouldn't people use that instead of VFP?

Double Wow.

>If you want to provide value in your "training" - you should show both C# and VB .NET

If this is what it comes down to, get a grip. The last thing a training company wants to do is have the attendees walk away confused. In a perfect world, what you say is true, give the most detailed explanations as possible. When someone wants to learn how to do something, they dont' want to have 2 ways shoved in their face that is easily confused.

Let me point out that I hope you never start a training company for .NET. If you only cover half the concepts and half real value of .NET that you shoudl because you spent to much time going over the same concept in two different langauges, you are decreaseing value.

Using your logic, why VB.NET and C#? Why not C#, VB.NET and JScript.NET? Seems like that 3rd langauge is a must of former ASP developers who chose Jscript on the server side. What about COBOL and PERL?

Whatever your problem is with people teaching C#, get over it already, John.

>Of course, for some consultants, keeping .NET a "black art" may better serve an alternate agenda that VB .NET would not serve.

You're incredible.

>if a customer stuggles with some fundemental concepts in C# - but could grasp VB .NET in a much quicker time frame and could get the job done - I would be hard pressed to find a credible reason to tell the customer why he had to go to C#.

What sort of concepts woudl those be?

>In other words, I am expending an additional amount of up front resources when it is questionable as to whether I would realize the benefit.

What are the additional up front resources? If there are some, you have a point.

>As a vendor and training co, this may make sense for you. But for the typical developer, this is not a wise way to expend current limited resources...

Actually, it makes more sense for the typical developer to be familair with many tools, or at least, in a better position to jump? Or do you think this is not the case?

>So you are subordinating the needs of your MS clients to the needs of your non-MS clients...???

How is he subordinating? I thought you said there was no technical difference. If thats the case, then Kevin is being more responsible by choosing the language that can have more than one applicatoin.

>And indirect message is that you are showing MS customers "a way out"...

Are you afraid of something? Are developers with expertise in more than one area threatening you or something? Is the realization that finally, developers will not have golden handcuffs preventing you from sleeping at night?

>And there is another article, one I cannot cite, that says C# is junk.

Cite the article, come on, I dare you. Oh well, here it is:

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-817522.html

Some article, there's one paragraph that addresses C# at a mildly technical level:

Q: Why do you say Microsoft's C# is Java without the reliability, productivity or security?
A: You find stuff in it that has essentially loopholes for everything. They had this problem in their design rules that they had to support C and C++, which means you have to have a memory model where you can access everything at all times. It's the existence of those loopholes that is the source of security, reliability and productivity problems for developers. So on the one hand, they copied Java, and on the other hand, they added gratuitous things and other things that are outright stupid. That's amusing.

I'm not sure where this FUD comes from, but it may have something to do with allowing unsafe code. The use of unsafe code would be rare, but invaluable when needed. The cite you failed to cite is useless. While Kevin's article addressed many numbers and great facts, your response is "they added gratuitous things and other things that are outright stupid". Yes, these "things" are very convincing.

If this does not have to do with unsafe code, than the problem is not in C#, its the CLR. THe specific targetting of C# is only a marketing decision. If true, than C# and VB.NET are both junk.

>Basically, you show me your authority and I will show you mine...

Funny you mention that, because your appeal to an authority is irrational, considering the authority in your case is not an expert in C# and stands by a very subjective opinion, where Kevin's is hard facts abotu Java and C# by people that are experts with both.

>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/.
>Great...

No further comment? This is not important at all? Seems like you think people should be straying away from C#, even in when reasons like the above exist. You don't happen to have an "alternate" agenda like others that you accuse, do you?

>IMO, because you have chosen to "emphasize" a particular language, you are diminishing the very value you are allegedly providing....

In regards to training issues, you're nuts if you believe this. I'd like to see you give a training session that new .NET develoeprs can walk out of knowing the ins and outs of 3 or 4 .NET langauges and have the developers think that it was money well spent. Most develoeprs will only use one language, and jamming more down their throat will just confuse them.

In regards to doing actual work, you're crazy there too. The point of the CLR is to offer a range of langauges that do the same thing. A developer can choose one of those langauges, and work, and even work with controls not written in the chosen language. Not emphasizing on one langauge simply is not productive and confusing.