[gwbas1c]

How is this different than C#? What new concepts does this bring that C# doesn't?

20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using. There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language."

BTW, there's a whole nitpicky/semantic argument that C# isn't null safe because of the null forgiving operator. That will probably come into play with G# if the null forgiving operator can be used from C# to pass null into G# code that doesn't expect it.

[AdieuToLogic]

> 20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using.

IronPython[0] and IronRuby[1] would like a word... Largely so they could be remembered.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby

[fulafel]

And F# - though that's alive and well.

[userbinator]

There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language."

I remember the MS documentation had sample code in all the variants of .NET languages they created (C#, F#, VB.NET), and of course there were decompilers that let you choose which one to target, with many other translation tools available between them.

[ygra]

They still do.

[fulafel]

I think it would be more valuable if it had less concepts than C# but it doesn't seem clear if they succeeded in that.

[Foobar8568]

The momentum behind VB.NET was mainly because most enterprises using VB6 assumed it was the natural replacement.

[WorldMaker]

To be fair, VB.NET itself also thought itself the natural replacement/direct continuation. Its compiler version started at 7.

[gnabgib]

Your humble opinion? Nobody likes giving up what they know.. Perl, Python, Ruby, VB6 (can be moved to c#), Pascal (still relevant)