MsgBox("test") no msg box?

[bokiteam]

Hi All,

I dont' know why I can not pop up a message box.

MsgBox("test")

it is ok in vb6...

Best regards,
Boki.

 

[bokiteam]

Got it, thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Boki.

 

[Aaron]

Boki,

try this

Private Sub button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles button1.Click

Messagebox.Show("Hello, World")

End Sub

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Boki,

MsgBox("test") works for me

Although I never use it, I use messagebox.show

I have no reason for that, it are more charachters so mostly I use the
shorter one.

I hope this helps,

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I dont' know why I can not pop up a message box.

MsgBox("test")

it is ok in vb6...

It should work in VB.NET too. Where are you calling 'MsgBox'?

 

[Patrice]

It should work. Always indicates what happens instead of just syaing it
doesn't work.

This is in the MicroftVisualBasic namespcae. I velive you din"t have a
reference to this making tuhis function unklnown...

 

[ZR]

Msgbox is an old syntax - it works in VB.NET 2003 if you have
Microsoft.VisualBasic imported, but merely for compatibility reasons and may
not be supported in future versions.
Messagebox.Show is the correct VB.NET syntax that people should use.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Msgbox is an old syntax - it works in VB.NET 2003 if you have
Microsoft.VisualBasic imported, but merely for compatibility reasons and
may not be supported in future versions.
Messagebox.Show is the correct VB.NET syntax that people should use.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. "Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is not the
Visual Basic Compatibility Library
("Microsoft.VisualBasic.Compatibility.dll"). It's part of Visual Basic .NET
and there are no public plans to remove this library, as parts of it are
strongly tied to the Visual Basic .NET programming language. Using
"Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is perfectly legitimate in VB.NET.

 

[ZR]

I was commenting the possible removal of Msgbox, NOT the removal of the
actual library where it is placed - now I see that wasn't very clear in my
previous post.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I was commenting the possible removal of Msgbox, NOT the removal of the
actual library where it is placed - now I see that wasn't very clear in my
previous post.

Well, I cannot think of any reason why 'MsgBox' should be removed. It's not
part of the compatibility library. 'MsgBox' exists even longer than
'MessageBox.Show', and I believe it will stay longer than 'MessageBox.Show'
because it's not tied to a certain technology. Technologies fade, languages
(should) persist.

 

[ZR]

I don't work for Microsoft so I can't guarantee that my theory is correct

But I don't see a point in introducing new syntax with .NET if they don't
plan to remove the old
snytax (which does the same thing) sooner or later - perhaps they won't
remove VB6 leftover
functions like MsgBox, only won't "recommend" using them (whatever that
would mean)

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

ZR

I don't work for Microsoft so I can't guarantee that my theory is correct

But I don't see a point in introducing new syntax with .NET if they don't
plan to remove the old
snytax (which does the same thing) sooner or later - perhaps they won't
remove VB6 leftover

We have not seen any official information if either messagebox.show or
msgbox will be replaced.

There is as well not given any information, if both will stay or both in
future will completely be replaced by another class.

Even if it is as you write, than they probably will be directly converted to
what is needed in the version upgrade part.

Therefore all what you have read about this or think is just guessing in the
same way as that Saint Nicolas is retiring in future and will be replaced by
Saint John.

However we have seen a lot of this guessing here.

I hope this gives an idea.

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I don't work for Microsoft so I can't guarantee that my theory is correct

But I don't see a point in introducing new syntax with .NET if they don't
plan to remove the old
snytax (which does the same thing) sooner or later - perhaps they won't
remove VB6 leftover
functions like MsgBox, only won't "recommend" using them (whatever that
would mean)

I don't think these functions are leftover functions. Would you consider
C#'s and VB.NET's syntax as "leftover" syntax of C, Java, and VB6? Why not
just use IL assembler for development? It's the only .NET programming
language that doesn't suffer from the "leftover" thingy. The intention and
benefit of .NET is not that code looks the same in all .NET programming
languages. If this was the goal, there would only be IL assembler or a more
high-level programming language available. The main point of .NET is
interoperability of components developed using different .NET-enabled
programming languages. It doesn't matter whether or not you are using
'MsgBox' or 'MessageBox' instead. It matters that you are using managed
code with all of its benefits.