I think that Hector (and others) might also be overlooking the fact that Microsoft.VisualBasic is just another .NET Dll. If he likes the syntax of VB.Net, then I think that's about the only reasonably good argument for liking VB over C#. I'm staying out of the debate because what language a person prefers over another language is of no interest to me. Having said that though, I just thought it would make sense to clarify that VB methods are not available only to VB.Net.

For example, you can set a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic in a C# project and do something like:

// simple test to use VB methods in a C# source file
using System;
using Microsoft.VisualBasic;

class SimpleVBTest
{
	public static void Main()
	{
		String str = "jess banaga";
		Console.WriteLine("Ucase({0}): {1}", str, Strings.UCase(str));
	}
}

Admittedly, a super simple example, but I think that some people may not yet have realised that Microsoft.VisualBasic can be used from any .Net language and not just from VB.Net.

Alan

>>That's the theory. That's in fact what most of the publicity says and speakers claim at the conferences. Yet, in the long run, I think each language will be better at different types of applications. They both target different set of developers and needs.
>
>Sorry. ADO.Net is not a theory and not just publicity. Do you have something in mind that you can't do in VB but you can in C# or vice-versa?
>
>>Developers need different capabilities to build an OS than to build a payroll application.
>
>Build an OS???
>
>>In my opinion, C# will dig deeper into the .NET framework while VB.NET will bubble up with some high level stuff. Mike Helland gave a very nice example of the features (in this same thread) that each camp could suggest for future versions.
>
>Tell me, what's in the .Net framework specific only for VB.Net and vice-versa? None. The advantages of C# I could see over other .Net languages are:
>
>C# is ECMA standard while others are not.
>C# syntax is java like while you will be stucked with VB syntax.