I stopped reading after the first example. One of them is described as “good” and the other as “bad”. The bad one though does not actually fix the errors in the good one, but just leaves them out. The good one seems to be only an introduction. The bad one seems to be trying to convey content. Surely not very well, but comparing an introduction with content is like comparing apples with pears.
The two examples at the beginning are completely separate examples, not rewrites of each other. The comparison is in the readability for beginners, not the content.
I stopped reading after the first example. One of them is described as “good” and the other as “bad”. The bad one though does not actually fix the errors in the good one, but just leaves them out. The good one seems to be only an introduction. The bad one seems to be trying to convey content. Surely not very well, but comparing an introduction with content is like comparing apples with pears.
The two examples at the beginning are completely separate examples, not rewrites of each other. The comparison is in the readability for beginners, not the content.
sorry for your disappointment
The first two or three examples are really bad but the rest are quite good.