>Hi Rick..
>
>You bring up some very good and valid points. I like the fact that you go on record to say that C# IS NOT C++. Other than sharing the same letter in the name and sharing some common syntactical traits, I don't see how the two relate.

In syntax obviously and this *is* important because there's a huge pool of C++ developers out there and another large pool of Java people.

If you look around on the newsgroups you'll find that a large percentage of the folks qualifying as early adopters are much lower level developers than are typical in 4G languages we're used to. For MS this is obviously a smart move as they get both the C++ culture and VB culture combined into a single environment (.NET in general, but C# specifically).

>As for C# being a stipped down language, I see that knife cutting both ways. IMO, the more stripped down a language is, the more code you have to write. It is pretty early in the evolutionary path of both VB and C#. I suspect as time goes by, VB will gain new features. I suspect that C# OTOH, will remain small and uncluttered.

I think you're wrong. VB is at the end of the line of language expansion. All future expansion will go into the CLR. The language will grow only to support new 'basic language structures' no more new 'feature enhancements'. Same as C# for that matter... Languages are dead as of now in the Microsoft world. It's the CLR that will see all the excitement - languages now will see little more than compiler optimizations which really doesn't even happen at the language level either but at the IL compiler level which is also the CLR.

>When you get down to it, the power is in the framework and the language does little more than manipulate the framework. The exception is when you are writing your own classes (business objects). IMO, C# is not as fluid, as declaritive as VB. There are plenty of arguments on both sides. However, when push comes to shove, it is a matter of preference because I can interact with the framework just as easily with VB as I can with C#. Therefore, there is no material technical reason why a developer NEEDS to go to C#. If a developer can cling to C#, I say go for it. The same goes for the guy who can cling to VB.

I think that's the point everybody here except you has been making all along. Since the languages are on equal footing sans some minor exceptions (unmanaged code mainly) there's no reason to have allegiance to one or the other.

My point is simply this: If you plan on learning .NET the language is going to have the least impact on your learning curve. The curve is learning the CLR functionality which is a huge shift from the current COM/system model of development.

>When defining classes in VB over C#, it seems more fluid to me. Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see what I am missing/losing by using VB instead of C# - for the vast majority of tasks I have to perform. I concede that when the technical reason presents itself, I will then need to bail and use C#. As a matter of preference, if I like VB and I can be productive with the tool, there is no reason I should avoid its use as long as the product will be the strategic focus of the vendor (MS).

As I said it's all a matter of preference. I find VB verbose. But I have C++ background, so to me using scope notation and virtual function pointer syntax makes more sense then the new VB keywords for this stuff that are out of line with any other programming language - IMHO, VB always had this problem on *purposefully* doing things differently than most other language standards and for no good technical reason. There would have been a good case to make VB more like C# (and most other languages) for new functionality (class creation/inheritance structure in particular) in a lot of respects. The closer the resemblence the easier to switch between the two.

And FWIW, I think that anybody who works with the CLR will have to be fluent at least in passing with both languages because you will have to read other people's code whether it's in articles, books or code that is part of your project.

>To manufacture psuedo-technical reasons for favoring one language over the other - especially when it comes down to a matter of preference - IMO misses the point. It makes something out to be MUCH more than it really is. To intimate that the person who adopts VB is somehow disadvantaged is nonsense.

Hmmm... ain't that something? Coming from VFP which is arguably the most 'ridiculed' language ever, then going to VB and still not getting any satisfaction. Isn't that ironic, John?

Screw it, man! Why do you care so much what other people think? If you think it's the right choice then it probably is the right choice for you! Go with it...

Nobody here in this discussion has even hinted at the inferiority of VB because there really isn't any. But with VFP folks specifically you gotta remember there's a lot of animosity towards VB because of the rivalry of the past. Also, there are probably an equal share of people who never used VB, but *did* use C++ in the past whether in old jobs or even from schooling way back in classes/school/college etc...

I have my prejudices and I've stated as much. Being able to read VB.NET is good enough for me, but given a choice I won't touch it to write code. That's pure preference...

+++ Rick ---