Sure, but with mathematics, nobody is ever starting from scratch. And even the "driest" of educational books has some context in it. Or maybe I was lucky, and I haven't seen really dry books.
Initial topics on numbers and geometry have students already have some intuition on them, usually brought from home (eg. kids can count, add smaller numbers, understand differences between straight lines and circles...).
Similarly, coming into more advanced courses, I already had a bunch of context already at my disposal.
Like everything, it can go to an extreme in either direction, but I am mostly saying that I am comfortable with books that tend to be more on the "dry" end of the spectrum, and I can sometimes figure out many of those "dry theory" applications myself which brings motivation and joy (but certainly not all; lots of math has, as you point out, taken centuries for brilliant people to find solutions and tricks that work, and I don't kid myself that I can figure out all of that in a few months or years, let alone few hours — not without learning specifically of their tricks and solutions that do work). And it's definitely not the most efficient way to advance the science of mathematics — but we are discussing teaching and learning mathematics here: keeping students motivated is at the core of any successful learning experience.
Historical context is wonderful in mathematics because it allows one to really see what the original motivation for building up an abstract system was, and that's the best context.
How did you turn «doesn’t try to include context» into «completely useless»?
Bourbaki has no history, no diagrams, limited motivating discussion. It strives to be entirely axiomatic/formal, and to be organized in a strictly “logical” fashion. Bourbaki claims that intuition and analogy are dangerous/faulty and should be avoided.
That doesn’t mean you can’t learn anything from it.
I looked up Bourbaki, my first go was at Algebra (chapters 1 to 3). Seems pretty decent, a bunch of things are obvious (has an introductory section which describes some of the motivation and historical context.
Then starts by defining a law of composition using a function from E x E -> E: all pretty obvious. It even uses the common operators + and . (or no sign) to indicate addition and multiplication, all of which are intuitively clear and easy to make a parallel with what is already familiar. It even explicitely brings up a law of composition not everywhere defined on E for anyone who has not caught that composition needs to be a function on E x E -> E, or rather that it works for all values from E x E. For instance, subtraction on natural numbers is not a law of composition according to this definition.
And straight up on the first page, there are examples of what compositions are available on the set of natural numbers and on subsets of sets.
I am sure it gets hairer as you go along, but this is roughly the type of books I've used decades ago while studying mathematics, and roughly the type of books I enjoyed when properly interested and motivated.
It's only obvious that one needs to go through the Set Theory first as they rely on the terminology introduced there for precise handling of whatever comes here (I still remember most of the terminology, but I don't trust my memory to get all the specifics right).
It is not completely devoid of context and historical perspective, though it presents it in a slightly backwards way (introduction is clear to highlight how parts between asterisks are not necessary for purely logical reading of the text).
Again, and I've said this before, formal mathematics is hard mostly because you have to memorize so much of the new language, and you can't really grasp the context without having grasped the context for what you are building on (eg. if you don't have understanding of functions/mappings, tough luck getting to the grips of algebraic structures).
Switching to Theory of Sets, this is the type of writing that brings me joy. And it certainly concerns itself with context in the pretty longish introduction, attempts to recognize the limits of the language, covers metamathematics and use of simple arithmetic before the foundation for it has been formally laid...
I enjoy that it starts off with defining symbols of a theory, and then assemblies, which is the first I hear of the term, but I can already feel what assemblies will amount to before the example given of an assembly in Theory of Sets — even if the text warns that "the meaning of this expression will become clear as the chapter progresses."
And that's exactly my point. I can enjoy learning from a text like this. I know I am in the minority (I was in the minority in Mathematical Gymnasium and university studies who enjoyed it; I wasn't even remotely the best at solving math problems, because I did not enjoy them), but I am calling for people not to discount this approach for everybody.
Initial topics on numbers and geometry have students already have some intuition on them, usually brought from home (eg. kids can count, add smaller numbers, understand differences between straight lines and circles...).
Similarly, coming into more advanced courses, I already had a bunch of context already at my disposal.
Like everything, it can go to an extreme in either direction, but I am mostly saying that I am comfortable with books that tend to be more on the "dry" end of the spectrum, and I can sometimes figure out many of those "dry theory" applications myself which brings motivation and joy (but certainly not all; lots of math has, as you point out, taken centuries for brilliant people to find solutions and tricks that work, and I don't kid myself that I can figure out all of that in a few months or years, let alone few hours — not without learning specifically of their tricks and solutions that do work). And it's definitely not the most efficient way to advance the science of mathematics — but we are discussing teaching and learning mathematics here: keeping students motivated is at the core of any successful learning experience.
Historical context is wonderful in mathematics because it allows one to really see what the original motivation for building up an abstract system was, and that's the best context.