Boy I love it when C# bigots post comments about VB.NET without really knowing VB.NET. And why is it that this argument still exists. It's like it moved from C++ vs VB.NET to C# vs VB.NET. Where are the C++ vs C# arguments? Anyways, there a couple of flaws in this list. 1. If I want to do unsafe code, I'll use C++. Removes all the "issues" surrounding this type of development caused by using C#. 2. I personally don't care for the C'ish syntax. This is a choice issue. I like the verbose nature of VB.NET. 3. Option Strict On... 'nuff said. 4. "fine control over integer checking". After 20 years of developing software, this has never been a issue. I just plain turn it off... and check myself when the need/questionability arises in my own code. 5. 'using' is cool. Would be nice to have it. However, it's a nicety, not a necessity. 6. I think if you turn on modifying the compiler options, much of this IL will be removed. However, even with them in there, is there really a performance issue with this? OK, so the file size is a bit larger... we are talking about .NET here, right? Not really a valid argument to discuss file sizes. It requires a 20meg runtime for crying out loud. 7. XML documentation is very nice. However, with the current versions there are several add-on products (free as well) that add this feature to VB.NET. Also, version 2.0 will include this feature as well. 8. Cool feature, but how often are you really doing this? 9. 'out' - as recently posted to my blog at http://www.addressof.com, is available in VB.NET as the attribute. 10. Ummm... are you inflating this list by posting the same thing multiple times? See #4. 11. I'm not positive, but I don't think that foreach really does what you say it does. Again, I could be wrong. If I am, see #5. 12. OK, so you don't like the syntax; but VB.NET can do this. I like the syntax, it's clearer to me. 13. Again, a syntax thing. 14. You are making forward looking statements. Right now the rumor is that VB.NET will have generics. Also, the rumor is that VB.NET will have Edit and Continue in the debugger, C# will not. Again, these are rumors. 15. No Redim? What's the alternative... several lines of code. However, this is yet another syntax "issues". 16. Gee, more syntax... not a limitation. 17. Oh... look more syntax differences. Not limitations. 18. Whatever, learn the language. It's only "convoluted" because you don't know VB.NET. 19. Ummm... a) look up the documentation. b) learn the language. I do know the di