>>Isn't the only important element that I simply remember the name?
>
>Not me. Though, writing readable code may not be important to you.

In one fell swoop, in your alleged answer to this "rhetorical" question, you not only did not answer the question ,you managed a personal slight as well.


>>2. Allow for the possibility of togglinh case sensitivity on and off
>
>This is what I hoped would crop up between Beta2 and RTM, but no such luck. Though I would like to see this, I am doubtful. I have to admit, however, that case sensitivity hasn't slowed me down at all, so either way, its of no personal advantage to me.
>

Of course, the flaw is that just because case sensitivity hasn't slowed you down, that does not mean that other people don't find it to be a PITA.


>>Having a low-level language like C# is a good thing. If you need to drop down a level for a certain reason, it is good that a language, which is not that difficult to grasp, is available to you.
>
>What makes C# lowlevel and VB non lowlevel?
>

The VB language is a richer as far as functionality is concerned. Also, based on the docs and the number of comparisions with C/C++, C# strikes me as being a "lower level" language - not that this is a bad thing...

>>From an efficiency standpoint however, VB *is* better - hands down.
>
>
Why? If anything, technically, the only difference in the languages that I found is that VB.NET doesn't support default methods and properties, where C# does. Thats the only "effeciency" difference I have found, and it is in C#'s favor.
<

So when you create a class and you have to implement the curly braces, all the case sensitive crap - you are going to tell me that C# is more efficient????

Look - it is simply my opinion. If you don't agree, fine.

I think you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me...