I just stumbled upon this VB.NETquestion, which is a duplicate of another C# question.
I think we can all agree that we should not close questions as duplicates if the language is a different one (C -> C++, Java -> C#, Pascal -> Basic, etc.). But the difference between VB.NET and C# is in my opinion minor, close to not existent.
Should we be allowed to close these as duplicates of one another?
As Adam has pointed out, the difference in syntax between C# and VB.NET can be confusing to someone who's familiar with one rather than the other. That said, sometimes the issue is not that a question is C# specific or VB.NET specific, rather that the actual question only pertains to the .NET framework. In that instance I'd consider it appropriate to close the question as a duplicate.
For example, two question titles:
Both of these could be answered by pointing the OP in the direction of the GetTempFileName method on the System.IO.Path class. Other than some "garnish" to cover assigning the result to a variable, there's nothing language specific in the question.
However, the example you cited also avoids any confusion regarding mapping long, float, etc, to their VB.NET data-types, the mere presence of which I would suggest would be a reason to not vote to close as a duplicate.
No. While the difference to you may seem insignificant, to a beginner and even intermediate VB programmer the additional syntax rules of C# can be confusing. There's no need to try to mash them together (is SO running out of space? Will this give us more google juice? etc...).
You haven't provided compelling evidence that shows leaving the two separate is harmful or that combining/duping them significantly improves the site.
It depends.
While I can see it could be confusing in some cases, there will be some cases where the answer is identical as both are based on .NET.
This means that you need to take each question on it's merits.
If you think that a question was unfairly closed then vote to reopen, raise it here on MSO or even flag it for a moderator to take a look at.
No. No. A thousand times no.
