Reading this entry in Paschal L's blog, and I get this message from the comment "Simple evolution is bad, and if it's not revolutionary then it's a waste of time. No one has done anything to programming languages that isn't redundant since the early 70's."
Revolutionary changes force one to learn much more new information to do the same tasks. It may allow much more to be done, but it may just be "really different". Evolutionary changes allow us to build on a base that is proven and well understood. Some may hate the fact that it's mostly the same with a few small changes. To them I say "Stay with the old!". If you think C# is just "another curly brace language", then don't learn/use it. Is this not an obvious solution? If you find you must use it since it's so widespread, then perhaps you should look at why everyone else is switching; There must be some reason, right?
I've never understood the "Y is simply a few changes to X, so why bother" argument. Simple - you bother if the benefits of the changes outweigh the investment to learn them. Same with any other change, revolutionary or not.
"For efficiency, we should all use the same language and tools" sounds like a manager I once had. I responded "For efficiency, we should all solve the same problems and develop the same applications, too."