statement, since the developer may not have associated the method with the class that defines it, or even the namespace in which it lives - but rather with the type that it extends and the namespace that type lives in. The problem In programming, situations arise where it is necessary to add functionality to an existing class—for instance by adding a new method. Normally the programmer would modify the existing class's source code, but this forces the programmer to recompile all binaries with these new changes and requires that the programmer be able to modify the class, which is not always possible, for example when using classes from a third-party assembly. This is typically worked around in one of three ways, all of which are somewhat limited and unintuitive : Inherit the class and then implement the functionality in an instance method in the derived class. Implement the functionality in a static method added to a helper class. Use aggregation instead of inheritance. Current C# solutions The first option is in principle easier, but it is unfortunately limited by the fact that many classes restrict inheritance of certain members or forbid it completely. This includes sealed class and the different primitive data types in C# such as int, float and string. The second option, on the other hand, does not share these restrictions, but it may be less intuitive as it requires a reference to a separate class instead of using the methods of the class in question directly. As an example, consider a need of extending the string class with a new reverse method whose return value is a string with the characters in reversed order. Because the string class is a sealed type, the method would typically be added to a new utility class in a manner similar to the following: string x = "some string value"; string y = Utility.Reverse(x); This may, however, become increasingly difficult to navigate as the library of utility methods and classes increases, particularly for newcomers. The location is also less intuitive because, unlike most string methods, it would not be a member of the string class, but in a completely different class altogether. A better syntax would therefore be the following: string x = "some string value"; string y = x.Reverse(); Current VB.NET solutions In most ways, the VB.NET solution is similar to the C# solution above. However VB.NET has a unique