> "this book is too unfriendly to people that don't program because it has lots of code and expects people to be able to read code"
That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". I don't understand why you are chafed.
what kind of book that teaches programming could possibly have no code in it? that's not just "friendly" that's completely completely lacking substance.
I imagine everyone agrees with you on that. You responded to an objection to a characterization of the book, not a criticism of the book for failing to match that characterization nor a claim that a book on the topic should be able to match it.
>That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders".
no it wouldn't because it would be vacuously misplaced because there is no such book that aims to teach programming (friendly or not) and doesn't have code.
I am absolutely getting you. The person you responded to did not make the claim that such a book exists. He challenged the idea that the book in question is an example of such a book.
That would be a perfectly valid response to the claim that the book "is very clear and friendly for non-coders". I don't understand why you are chafed.