>
Until you can show why we should entertain your hypothetical situation, you have no argument.
>

Who is "we"? FWIW, I am not asking you to entertain/accept anything. You asked a question and I provided an answer.

A hypothetical situation is just that - hypothetical. The question is whether it is a reasonable hypo. You may not accept it - but nonetheless, it is an argument.

>
Can you show me figures showing how much effort each language requires to learn? More importantly, where the difference in the langauges makes the "effort" expended in the learning process of each sigfnicantly different? I don't think you can.
>

Again, it is a hypothetical situation. Hard #'s are not the issue. There are assumptions being made. Once the assumptions are made, you don't care about the specifics.

>
FWIW, if anything, I think I could find a study proving that developers pick up on C# faster than VB.NET due to its roots in industry standards.
>

I seriously doubt you could prove this one way or the other... As for the premise being because of "industry standards", I question this...

Having said that, you have opened the door on yourself. What is the industry standard? How does C# conform to this industry standard? How does VB not conform? How does the hypothesis that C# conforms to an industry standard make it easier to learn over VB? In general, you could simply answer the question of why conformance makes for easier learning.

Be careful about the doors you open. Don't make a statement or ask a question that you don't know the answer to. For sure, I'll call you on it...

If you are going to throw out an explicit assertion like this, you should defend it. OTOH, if you were speaking in hypothetical terms as opposed to absolute terms, then the issue turns on whether your hypothetical is reasonable or not.

>
I think your reasoning behind these two points is extremely flawed, and these are the premise you use to conlcude that consultants are trying to keep customers in the dark and subordinate Microsoft, a rather tasteless accusation. Personally, I would proabably apologize at this point.... but thats just me...
<

It is a generalization on my part. Consultants often try to make things a black art. To a large degree, consultants exist because of the ignorance of clients. In other words, if clients knew everything, there would be no need for consultants. Consultants, to one degree or another, have a vested interest in "secrecy". It is a comment I will not appologize for because it was a general comment - one that I am entitled to make because I am in the population of people I am pointing the finger at.

FWIW, there are a lot of questions I have posed that are still on the table.