why is this not working?{resolved}

[System_Error]

I have a JtextArea named textArea2 and I want to search for text and then select it.
My code is not working and I don't know what could possibly be wrong with it.

 String textSearch = JOptionPane.showInputDialog("Enter a string to search for");
	int left = textArea2.indexOf(textSearch);
	int right = textArea2.lastIndexOf(textSearch);
                textArea2.select(left,right);

[System_Error]

I get 2 errors saying:

Cannot resolve symbol
method indexOf(String);

Cannot resolve symbol
method lastIndexOf(String);

[CornedBee]

textArea2 is a JTextArea, not a String.

String val = textArea2.getText();
int left = val.indexOf(searchString);
int right = left + searchString.length();
textArea2.setSelectionStart(left);
textArea2.setSelectionEnd(right);

[System_Error]

Thank you so much. I was starting to go crazy with this problem.

[vbNeo]

It's funny how VB always confuses people when moving to a new language. In VB, it wouldn't have sent the object itself, like in java, but it would have called a standard sub, the text() sub. This, although it's made to save time, is a really bad thing, because it often confuses new programmers to think that's the way of doing things. It's especially hard to move on to OOP when you've been doing VB for a while...

Just my 2 cents, hehe

[CornedBee]

Well, OOP is OOP and Procedural Programming is Procedural Programming. The shift from one to the other is confusing and often leads to bad design, but that's not only VB's fault - the switch from C to C++ has similar problems.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CornedBee
Well, OOP is OOP and Procedural Programming is Procedural Programming. The shift from one to the other is confusing and often leads to bad design, but that's not only VB's fault - the switch from C to C++ has similar problems.

Agreed, but VB still does have a way of hiding certain things, that the user should be aware of. Though this is to increase user friendlyness, it does lead to confusion. If you understand WHY 2 + 2 = 4, you can determine that 2 + 3 = 5, but if you just take that 2 + 2 will always equal 4, you have no way of knowing what 2 + 3 is. That was generally my experience when moving on...