<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tutorial on Matt Thornton</title>
    <link>https://matt-thornton.net/tags/tutorial/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Tutorial on Matt Thornton</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:01:38 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://matt-thornton.net/tags/tutorial/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>SharePoint 2010: Visual Webpart tutorial</title>
      <link>https://matt-thornton.net/tech/sharepoint/sharepoint-2010-visual-webpart-tutorial/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:01:38 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://matt-thornton.net/tech/sharepoint/sharepoint-2010-visual-webpart-tutorial/</guid>
      
        <description>&lt;p&gt;One of the scourges of software development, and it seems especially SharePoint development, is that more often than not, when faced with a new task, Google is your first stop, looking for tutorials or guides. Frequently, however, people posting the tutorials (MSDN/Microsoft included) are guilty of putting up guides and source code that is incorrect, or missing some vital info. I experienced this very issue recently when I needed to create a &lt;a href=&#34;http://blog.concurrency.com/sharepoint/create-a-custom-web-part-for-sharepoint-2010/&#34;&gt;visual webpart&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tutorial is good enough, but the actual source code posted, doesn&amp;rsquo;t work. What&amp;rsquo;s most infuriating, though, is when the author then goes radio silence, and the comments fill up with bemused readers, all looking to achieve the same goal - but unable to do so.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>