A big company says At least knowledge not to ask "Why don't you use C#?" in its job requirements. And as a C# coder I wonder why do they prefer vb.net instead of C#.
Also a Microsoft MVP uses vb.net in his Silverlight applications. Is there something Microsoft won't tell us?
Since VB.net and C# are both CLR languages, from a techincal standpoint, the end result is nearly the same.
Why use VB.net, perhaps because the team is more familiar with it.
Or, the existing codebase was already in VB.net.
Or even that every customer/client of this company wants VB.net
People use the language that they're most familiar with.
Even though they're both CLR languages there are structures that work slightly differently in each (for loops in c# vs VB.net are a good example), so, it only makes sense to use that one that you're comfortable with.
VB.NET has inline XML literals, which make building XML structures in LINK to XML much easier.
We had applications in classic asp and used vbscript. So when we upgraded to .Net it was a natural progression to use vb.net. Same would apply for people coming from VB 6. Likewise, C# would be a natural progression for someone coming from C++ or Java.
That company has a point:
A good programmer will know that VB.NET and C# are fairly equivalent languages.
An inexperienced programmer will hear the word "Visual Basic", turn away in disgust and ask "why don't you use C# instead".
In general, avoiding VB bashing (or language bashing in general, for that purpose) is a common sign of maturity and experience in programmers.
So, this requirement doesn't necessarily mean that the company favors VB.NET for some reason or another. It might just mean that they don't want programmers who haven't gotten over the "my language is better than yours" phase.
Before C# 4.0 and dynamic (and the improved COM interop and optional parameter handling), VB had a much easier time with COM code, especially things like the Office APIs.
With that fixed in 4.0, there is very little to pick between them. Xml literals? meh - I don't write that much xml that I care (and I've done plenty of xml).
Disclosure: I "cut my teeth" back in VB6, moving to C# in .NET 1.1 - haven't looked back. These days, my VB is mainly read-only, but I don't have a problem with VB - simply I prefer C#.
Being language neutral is an advantage in today's employment market. A potential employer does not want to hear that you think they chose the wrong tool for the job before you even start. That shows that you will probably have less enthusiasm for the job than someone who is either passionate about VB, or al least doesn't care which tool set they use.
Ultimately you should derive your satisfaction from doing a job well, not the tools that you used to get that job done.
You could answer with another question: "Why not?"
Is there something specific that would stop me from using VB.NET that would be possible only and only in C#?
Isn't it mostly about syntax?
Agree 100% with Heinzi: It's just the term 'Basic' that usually provokes a negative reaction.