>Regardless - think about how this would be implemented.

And how much time and money that would take. I suppose that C# team could spend time working with the VS.NET making sure that the VB.NET paper clip worked flawlessly with C#, but how many developers that choose C# over VB.NET want or care about how well the paper clip works. My point was that by having the C# focus on what C# users want, and the VB.NET team focusing on what the VB.NET wants, instead of the other way around, the customers will benefit the most.

>This is not an either or feature. These can be generic so they work with either.

That does not mean that the C# and VB.NET teams have no work to do. Like I said, if they wanted to add some IntelliSense features to VB.NET, in your scenario, design and quality assurance resources need to be spent on the C# side as well, regardless of what C# users want. Does that sound like it benefits the customer?

>>But put yourself in the place of a VB.NET developer who doesn't really care where the language ends and the framework stops. He just wants to bang out an application.
>I don't agree. I think it's pretty obvious and no mistaking it.

Then you're not thinking like a VB.NET developer *g*

>A language provides structure and commands. The framework provides classes. There's a distinct line and I don't expect that to change.

In 1.0, I agree, the line is pretty specific. But I do expect that to change. Thats just my opinion of course.

>I guess at this point we need to talk about what a 'custom' language extension would provide. The only useful example I can think of is building in of a Data Manipulation Language that simplifies data access.

How about extending C#'s unsafe code ability?

But the issue you're raising isn't specific enough IMO. You say "Whether or not C# could benefit from VB.NET enhancments" but you should be asking "Whether or not C# users WANT VB.NET enhancements". You're not taking that into consideration and just assume that C# users want what VB.NET users want. This is most certainly not the case.