Jon Galloway

I think you may have misunderstood what DLR is, and its relation to VB.NET.

From the article, DLR will be able to run legacy Visual Basic (i.e. what came before VB.NET), this isn't VB.NET getting a new feature AFAICS.

So this doesn't appear to be VB.NET vs C#.

I don't think there should be this great big "language divide" though.  It all works and gets the job done.  If a company has a long-lived investment in VB it make sense to stick to that rather than retrain everyone in C#, losing productivity.

For me, I just find C# more readable (but that's because I'm used to c-like syntax).

@Phil - The articles are pretty clear on saying that this is VB version 10, the post-Orcas release. http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2007/05/02/20395.aspx "This is where VBx, the next version of Visual Basic, comes in. Part of VBx is a hostable managed component (written in Visual Basic, no less!) built on top of the DLR. Since Silverlight can host DLR languages, this enables you to send Visual Basic code to a Silverlight instance and have it dynamically compiled and run. So when the Mac hits your webpage, you don't have to send a binary at all, you can send just source code. When you want to modify your application, you don't rebuild, you just modify the source code sent to the browser and refresh the page and there you are! The important thing to keep in mind is that there is still only ONE Visual Basic language but once VBx arrives you'll have more than one way of getting to it. You'll still be able to compile code into the traditional .DLL or .EXE, but you'll also have the option of compiling and running the code on the fly, within a running instance of the CLR. That's where things are likely to get interesting..." http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=45219

C# wasn't made to be a dynamic language, kinda like how vb.net wasn't made to be compiled, it was just kinda hacked together to compile :p.

ok it was made to be compiled then hacked away to be interpreted, but i hope people don't try to hack away c# to be interpreted.

If you work in VB.NET you will always and forever be protesting, "hey, VB can do that too!".  It's not fair, and it's not right, but for better or worse, with VB you will always be working against negative perceptions ("toy language"), and with C# you will always be working with positive ones ("serious language").

IMO, Python, Ruby and JavaScript (and perhaps one day Smalltalk) fit the DLR like a glove.  VB.next probably doesn't fit quite as well, but can get along quite well.  C#, I don't think is a great fit, nor would I see much demand for it.  That's not the market MSFT would be going after.  They are after the dynamic language enthusiasts.

The C# people will likely gravitate towards JavaScript, Ruby or Python when they want to work on the DLR.  JavaScript because they already know it, and it's becoming a "cool" skill; Ruby for the really trendy younger devs; Python for those who like to be a little bit more exclusive.  I don't see your average C# developer doing VB on the DLR in droves when the other choices are available.

I actually agree with you that VB.net developers are always working against the negative perceptions.  But something I found that can smack those people, if you have the time, is to write the same thing from scratch in C#, then ask them if they can do it.  :-).

I am a vb.net guru and I am currently working with the almighty C# and I have to tell you it is not any diffrent then VB.net. I actually think diffrent then many of you. To me all languages are just tools. It is the logic that is powerfull. Its true what I can do in VB.NET I can do in C# some things are easier in VB.net some things are easier in C# or look harder in C# becuase it is more OO creating classes and not methods. Just think about it this way most people are right handed and to get them to be left handed is impossible but if you can simulate the way you use your right hand using your left you will learn how to use your left hand just like your right hand. I think that the divide is in the programmer not in the language.

from my experiance things are a little bit harder in C# than VB.NET.  This is mostly because I come from VB background and a not a windows C background.  I notice it being different when it come to data manipulation and setting up events.  

If I had a project that time and cost did not matter I would complete it with C# to learn it more,  but for now my quick and 'dirty' work will be done with VB.NET because I can create things rapidly with it.

Quick and dirty!

Amen

lol well, iv got five years vb.6 behind me, 3 years vb.NET and 2 years c# and yes there isnt much diffrence between the two but i can tell you now (business point of view) that its better to have c# behind you as more and more businesses are moving either from vb.6 to c# or vb.net to c# as its a more recognised, more powerfull and on the fly to create apps within a short ammount of time

There is not much different if someone coding in dirty & sloppy style.

However C# books & communities have played important role promoting object-oriented purity. As a result C# programmers in general more aware/adopt better coding standard.