You mean all the things that have links to resources about them in the pre-requisite knowledge section? 😂

no, I mean the things I listed... Like Git, GitHub, and the rest

Now go read through the links in the pre-requisite section.

... I did. They're literally links to download Visual Studio (nothing about git, github, views, literally anything besides downloading), a link to download .NET (same deal here), and a link to C# (once again, zero mention of git, github, etc.)

I think you must have started to add those in and forgot because there is absolutely no mention of them in your links.

Also, they’re not pre-requisites - it isn’t necessary to know how to use them, giving cloning the repo is optional - hence not listed as pre-requisites. See how that works?

From your article:

I have made the first commit at this point. 
The repo is at https://github.com/SmartmanApps/CSharpUI. 
This is preserved in the Master branch - all changes will be made in different branches 
so that you can swap between them to compare 
(though referring to the repo is optional - all the information you need is in this blog post).

you mention commits. Knowing wtf you are talking about is a prerequisite to literally understanding the words you are typing. If it doesn't matter then don't mention it. You mention repo. That requires knowing wtf a repository is. If it doesn't matter don't mention it. State "The code is at this link", not "the repo is here, this is preserved in the Master [sic] branch" (which is one of your typos by the way). You then discuss swapping between branches. All of this requires understanding git. To anyone that knows nothing about programming your words are completely nonsense here. To any reader that sees your words "though referring to the repo is optional - all the information you need is in this blog post" they will think "then why did this author mention it?"

Knowledge of layout is also a prereq

No it isn’t. I specifically cover exactly that. I see you didn’t read it.

.... yes it is dude. You literally didn't cover it. The first mention of layouts is when you say

For those not familiar with this, normally a layout recalculation is done each time you 
add an element to the UI, but the batch begin and commit says that we are going to 
make a bunch of changes, and don't do any recalculations until we are done adding elements

which is nonsense to someone that doesn't know anything about layouts. You then proceed to say

Define our elements: Well, we get to cheat a bit here, since we're recreating an 
existing UI - we can just read through MainPage.xaml and see what's there.:-) 
The ScrollView and VerticalStackLayout are used to position the other elements 
on the screen, so that'll go in our "Assemble GUI" section - everything else are views. 

We can't cheat and read through MainPage.xaml, you literally just had us delete it! Not only that but you said we don't need to click on the link to the code and you said everything would be provided in the article! All of which are false at this point. Then you state "The ScrollView and VerticalStackLayout ... everything else are views.". WTF are ScrollView and VerticalStackLayout and views???? This requires prerequisite knowledge of how layouts work. This is not in any of the prerequisite links. It is not explained in the article.

So not only do we need to actually be performing the actions in the article alongside you (meaning we can't just read the tutorial to find the information we need), you're forcing users to do the coding, and then you're actually telling the users to use something you've had them delete! AND you expect them to know what views, layouts, and reflowing are.

continued...

You don’t explain what binding is.

Yes I do! 😂 As do the links in the pre-requisite knowledge. Again showing you didn’t read it

no you literally don't and no, once again you seem to have maybe saved a draft somewhere that you are seeing prerequisite links that are not present in the published article. This is what we see

• https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/
• https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/download/dotnet
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/tour-of-csharp/tutorials/

The first link is a download link. The second link is a download link. The third link is a link to a single tutorial titled "Introduction to C#" and is made up of 6 sub-tutorials titled:

• Hello world and text
• Numbers in C#
• Tuples and types
• Branches and loops
• List collections
• Pattern matching

Not a single one of these tutorials mentions views, bindings, layouts, git, or even github. Do you really need me to go paste all of the text from those pages here into a comment so you can see for yourself? I really don't want to do that. You can go search yourself since you think your tutorial is so perfect, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving me wrong.

There’s a ton of typos.

says person not identifying any

I was trying to avoid writing a lengthy reply explaining every minute thing you've done wrong since that's reductive and honestly rude. On top of that, I make plenty of mistakes myself so pointing out your grammar and typos is even worse. You've forced my hand though, here are some of your typos.

• most commonly this either needs to be combined with the first sentence or needs to be capitalized
• (or Colors.cs if you must 😂) should be (or Colors.cs, if you must 😂)
• And ditto for Background, but set to whatever colour you want for the background. e.g. #FF000000 for black. should be And ditto for Background, but set to whatever colour you want for the background, e.g. #FF000000 for black.
• despite how it may appear, should be Despite how it may appear,
• Don't forge also that should be Don't forget also that
• batchbegin(); batchcommit(); should be BatchBegin(); BatchCommit();
• what's there.:-) should be what's there. :-)
• So, now we just need to add our 2 properties. -> So now we just need to add our 2 properties.
• where you have to change you code -> where you have to change your code
• you also switch between colour and color numerous times.

there's more, but honestly this is incredibly tiring. You don't need to admit anything. Just stop arguing about having a perfect tutorial. Nobody writes perfect tutorials. Claiming that you have is honestly ridiculous, especially when you've missed so much.

You missed putting certain things in code blocks

You ever tried doing that on dev.to? Guess what? There’s no tutorials for it! 😂 (the thing they said to do doesn’t work)

no, but I also would never choose to do a tutorial on dev.to. Just because you chose to write a blog somewhere that makes your communication less effective doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your communication being less effective.

You should every once in a while show the full class or file so the reader knows what they missed

It’s done at the beginning. Also there’s the repo. Again showing you didn’t read it.

this is very tiring. You never once show the full file in the article. In this comment you made here on Lemmy you have reaffirmed that you do not need to know or use Github to complete your tutorial so stating that you need to leave your article to see the full code is the exact opposite of what your tutorial has stated. I did read your tutorial, which is why I know you said those things.

There’s a lot that could be improved here.

says person with made-up criticisms from not having actually read through it.

It’s hard to write a tutorial.

No it isn’t. Assume the reader knows nothing.

I'm very sorry you have to hear these criticisms in this way, but your tutorial is severely lacking. If a staff software engineer has trouble following your tutorial from the very beginning then there are things that can be improved. I stated those things nicely in my first comment and then you lashed out stating that I didn't read your tutorial, even though I did. This comment here is the last I'm going to make on the subject. Your tutorial needs work. I've given you some things you can work on and you can either believe me (and the other comments from other users) or you can believe yourself and continue writing tutorials like this one.