All the important bloggers already slammed Joel on Software's take on the .NET languages, so I thought I'd join in to pretend I was all "insider mainstream".

Here's the offending quote:
But I hardly ever choose a language based on syntax. Yeah, I prefer the {}; languages (C/C++/C#/Java). And I have lots of opinions as to what makes a "good" syntax. But I wouldn't accept a 20 MB runtime just to get semicolons.

And here's why that's bad, again a quote:
But how do I develop a UNIX command line utility in .NET? How do I develop a tiny Windows EXE in less than 16K in .NET?

I really don't give a rip about the first quote. There he's missing the point... He likes VB 6 now, whines a touch about the vb runtime that's required, but realizes that 2 meg or so runtime isn't a big deal anymore because 2 megs isn't a big deal for anyone with any sort of net access. It's also nuttin' now because newer versions of Windows come with the runtime installed! The .NET runtime's no different, and 20 megs in 2002 isn't close to 2 megs in 1997.

The second point I just don't get. You wanna write something that's 16k? Everyone knows if you want a 16k game you're going to have to use bankswitching! (For those thankfully not geeky enough to know and too lazy to click, bankswitching is how you access more than 4k of ROM in an Atari 2600 game)

There's no reason to make a 16k command line app any more unless it's just to show off -- or to program for art's sake (again, see bankswitching), not for practical reasons.

I suppose he's exaggerating and means he'd like to program an app that's floppy sized, let's say. Then the answer's simple -- If you're targetting Windows 98 and NT, well, you're up the creek, har har. Don't use .NET. Don't even use VB. Use ANSI C and enjoy.

That was simple, wasn't it?