This is a tutorial. It almost fits the definition of "tutorial" at the link you posted, but not quite, but that's because the definition at the link you posted is a bit flawed. It definitely is not a how-to guide, and the links you posted strongly support that.
> How-to guides take the reader through the steps required to solve a real-world problem.
That is from the linked article on how-to guide. By "real-world problem" it means something specific you might want to do to a real code base, like "switch to a different database engine" or "add user authenticaion". That's why it includes the qualification "real-world". The original article definitely does not fall into that category.
> * A tutorial is what you decide a beginner needs to know.
> * A how-to guide is an answer to a question that only a user with some experience could even formulate.
That was some extra clarification from the linked article on the difference between tutorial and how-to guide. That makes it even more clear that the article is more like a tutorial than a how-to guide.
> Tutorials are lessons that take the reader by the hand through a series of steps to complete a project of some kind.
That's from the page about tutorials. The article introduces a reader to a substantial new topic from scratch and guides them through it, but it doesn't do so by making them complete a specific project, so it doesn't fit this definition.
But that doesn't stop it from being a "tutorial". The requirement that tutorials have to involve completing a sample project is invented by the author of that page and not part of the usual definition of that word.
This final point is pure conjecture, but I suspect the author of that page was just trying to strongly encourage people to base tutorials around sample projects. It's fair to encourage that, because often tutorials are improved by basing them around a single unifying project (but not always). But putting it in their definition of the word was a mistake, because that's not what that word means, and it's only created confusion.
> How-to guides take the reader through the steps required to solve a real-world problem.
That is from the linked article on how-to guide. By "real-world problem" it means something specific you might want to do to a real code base, like "switch to a different database engine" or "add user authenticaion". That's why it includes the qualification "real-world". The original article definitely does not fall into that category.
> * A tutorial is what you decide a beginner needs to know.
> * A how-to guide is an answer to a question that only a user with some experience could even formulate.
That was some extra clarification from the linked article on the difference between tutorial and how-to guide. That makes it even more clear that the article is more like a tutorial than a how-to guide.
> Tutorials are lessons that take the reader by the hand through a series of steps to complete a project of some kind.
That's from the page about tutorials. The article introduces a reader to a substantial new topic from scratch and guides them through it, but it doesn't do so by making them complete a specific project, so it doesn't fit this definition.
But that doesn't stop it from being a "tutorial". The requirement that tutorials have to involve completing a sample project is invented by the author of that page and not part of the usual definition of that word.
This final point is pure conjecture, but I suspect the author of that page was just trying to strongly encourage people to base tutorials around sample projects. It's fair to encourage that, because often tutorials are improved by basing them around a single unifying project (but not always). But putting it in their definition of the word was a mistake, because that's not what that word means, and it's only created confusion.