Well the only problem there is that the xbox uses the .net compact framework which has an altered compiler. VB.net and C# just seem to be the ones with the closest to full function compiler. I'm pretty sure that if you found a decent compiler for lets say Boo (no real reason) that it would still play nicely on the xbox.

I'd be happy if everyone would agree with you, that this is the only problem. there is no compiler yet. (usually there are all kind of bogus arguments, like security, or endianess, or compatibility, or...).

( maybe that whole talk that Profl started could be branched out, I feel like we are abusing a valid thread. )

What do you think is better. Choosing Monogame or the low level SharpDX?

Depends on the aim. As a straight XNA replacement then Monogame. If you want to get closer to the hardware etc then SharpDX. There is also OpenTK if you would rather have cross platform (openGL for mono/.net) although I don't think its actively developed anymore.

I would say yes if your aim is 2d. DX has 2d but its not as easy to use as monogame/XNA

I too am beginning to do game development and decided to try XNA 4.0 with Visual Studio 2010. My basis is that there are a lot of people out there who do not "instantly" upgrade to the latest Microsoft has to offer. Microsoft seems to push out new technology and leave older stuff to whither. But IMHO that is a bad business model. Outside of the USA and possibly the EU, many countries still rely on Win XP and Win 7. So I decided to continue focus on the Win7 desktop market. So far I've been happy with the decision. XNA 4.0 within Visual Studio 2010 gives me all the tools I need to do my game development. Additionally other open source vendors have complementary tools which also fit this environment.

For other newbies like me, I would recommend staying the course with XNA. I have heard that Monogame is planning to release their framework for the Win 7 environment later this year. In conjunction with MonoDevelop that would make a nice alternative to XNA should anyone decide to migrate away from it.

I too kinda feel like XNA is in it's death throes, and I would agree that MS is trying to make it slowly "fade away" rather than outright killing it and making a whole bunch of people cry. The problem with XNA from the beginning was building it with Direct3D9 as a back-end... D3D9 is extremely outdated and vastly inferior to 10 and 11. And XNA also leaves you stuck with only x86 (32-bit) applications. XNA's greatest strength (compatibility with multiple platforms: XBox, PC, Zune, WP7...) is also its greatest weakness; because compatibility with less powerful platforms means that PC games will suffer. I flirted with XNA for quite a while but soon abandoned it in favor of SlimDX.

I strongly suggest migrating from XNA to SlimDX. SlimDX is almost exactly like regular DirectX but with C# and the .NET Framework. In many ways this makes it an even more powerful tool (to me, at least). SlimDX is developed and supported actively by some very brilliant programmers, and it's extremely well written and stable. It has been used in commercial applications successfully, and I think it will only continue to grow in the future as more people become interested in it.

So make the switch to SlimDX. You'll never look back. It may be a bit difficult for you, at first, to deal with DirectX's technical complexity if you're coming from an XNA and/or Python/scripting background. But it will be worth the effort. Once you learn SlimDX it will be easy to learn native DirectX (provided you know some C/C++).

Part of this conversation has been "well, if your focus is this, then [blank]". Forgive the complete newbish question but what about those whose focus is XBLIG? Do these other options even matter to them?