C#

No, it's not great. In fact, it's not even very good. There are many things that cannot be done easily. It is bound to one vendor who can change the standard on a whim and sue any alternative vendors. It is clearly intended for ENTERPRISE program and makes inefficient use of it's keywords. Much of it's power comes from doing things that are considered harmful. It's standard library has almost nothing in common with other libraries.

Still, it is mostly simple to write and very simple to read. It is a lot of what Seeples should have been. It knows it's place and stays there. It does not puke and bleed out on the simplest of errors. Where did Bjarn go wrong? Was it the megalomania and feature creep? Was it too much focus on compatibility with C?

>>15
You're too ignorant to make that evaluation.

>>18
The Common Language Runtime was designed to support multiple languages. The Java Virtual Machine was designed to be marketable to universities, and only incidentally execute Java bytecode. Most of the differences are little things like whether or not you can do TCO reasonably. (You can trampoline on the JVM, but you still end up making food for the GC. A few JVM functional languages do without TCO as a result.)