I went carefully, line by line, through the first, real, half of Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.
All the writing I've read by Rudin is very precise. Sometimes a reader might want an intuitive understanding of what is going on, and for this after reading carefully take some time out, look back, and formulate some intuitive views. Right, in Rudin's books I've never seen a picture, but there is no law against drawing ones own pictures.
But for that subject, call it functional analysis, I also learned from Royden's Real Analysis, a little from each of several other books, and the lecture notes from the best course I ever had in school.
Overall, I liked learning from Rudin's books -- I'm glad to have such high quality math writing. But Halmos is my favorite author. And when they cover the same material, I like Royden better than Rudin. One of my main interests in that math is as background for probability, and for that my favorite author is Neveu.
Sorry about the OP: For me, the Riesz representation theorem is a very old topic; I covered it quite well in the past, don't want to go back, and am doing other things now.
For anyone who wants the Riesz theorem, in Rudin a nicely general version with a precise proof is on just a page or two with, say, a few more pages to get ready for the theorem itself.
I think the author takes issue with it not being intuitive, which is understandable. They do seem to acknowledge the generality is beneficial, however.
Isn't that the source with the proof described in the article as ungrokable?