"baby rudin is terse! and not a good book.
reasons: riemann integral is defined for real valud functions and definition heavily relies on order properties of R. With very less efort the whole theory works in banach space setting see Dieuodenne or lang analysis I"
That is not the intent of rudin's text.
"treastment of stokes theorem is too hurried and turn to spivak or lang analysis i or Ii."
Not sure what you mean: not enough coverage or too many pieces for the reader to turn in.
"the authour discuees abstarct maths but uses old fashioned term quantity."
You do know this text was available in the late 70s early 80s, correct? how old are you referring to?
"rather than implicit function theorem inverse function theorem is taken as a strting theorem . see dieuodenne foundations of modern anlysis"
So - not a problem.
bartle or apostol are better replacements and lang anlysis I is highly recommended ."
Saying better here is a personal judgement. I'm not a fan of lang's writing: bartle and apostol are both good.
"just like a mad fashion people read rudin which is neither lucid not completely ."
This is a statement completely lacking in substance. Are you implying that it is incorrect for an author to demand a little thought and work from his readers? I would rather not be spoon fed.
"goldberg is excellent for one variable.
pugh real nalysis is also very nice new arrival."
I'm not familiar with either of them.
Again: I'm not sure why there is this rabid dislike of rudin, but if you take the time to actually read what I've written neither have I said it is the best introduction to real analysis text in the history of the universe. My strongest comment was against the statement to the effect that "rudin was the worst ever" - unless the person who wrote that has reviewed every text ever written, it is impossible to justify that statement as being one of hyperbole. As your comments seem to be.