>> Sorry to pop your bubble.

Sorry to you too ... but my "bubble" wasn't popped by your reply.

>> MS thrives on change and has no problem throwing your baby out
>> with their bathwater.

So very true and is one of my points entirely ... I challenge you to show me how they are going to change C# as a language ... they may change .NET as a framework but the control structures of C# are ... really ... trivial.

>> MS makes money when business *must* change computing systems.

>> Look at the ride from Dos to Windows - Lotus 123, Word Perfect, and
>> Ashton Tate all died on that trip.
>> Look at how many times VB has changed database access models.
>> Look at COM. That was a fast trip from hot to not.
>> Look at the "DNA Architecture" gone and forgotten in a few years.

Absolutely ... the .NET framework may change over time but the C# language will (probably) not. That is what makes this so beautiful. I consider C# and VB.NET a great insulator to the inevitable change that takes place at the machine level. If MS uses OO Analysis and Design properly, we may not even see this change as the functionality may change but the object.method signature won't.

>> I am not saying C# is not good. I like it.

I do too ... this is the first chance I've had to learn a language that has *professional" respect. VFP didn't even though it was powerful enough to command it.


>> It's just that your sigh of relief that the era of rapid change
>> is over is a bit premature. <g> My bet is that change will be rapid and
>> accelerating.

I disagree, in the sense that the objects surfaced by the .NET framework have the opportunity to shelter programmers from this rapid change in hardware of which (I assume) you speak.

>> Sorry.

Hopefully, not my freind.

Respectfully,

CTBlankenship