[edit] With Economist link: https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/03/23/editing-roald-d...
I would also like to offer an additional counterpoint: Leaving work intact will, not only preserve the work "as is", but also contribute to future historians the true sociological impression that is aptly accurate for their time period.
Old books at their essence lets us talk to people from the past. We won't always like what they have to say, but they will speak about themselves and highlight how we've changed. If we can't understand where we came from, then we can't hope to understand how we got where we are.
That said, it is somewhat sexist in its assumption that all programmers are men, which is not a surprise given when it was published. That lack of gender inclusivity is right there in the title. But it doesn't really take away from the value of the writing unless you're trying to be offended.
"A team of two, with one leader , is often the best use of minds. [Note God's plan for marriage.]'"
That is only sexist if he is saying that the man is naturally the leader. Did he say that?
For thousands of years, certainly in European culture, the default human entity, when not specified, was masculine in gender. By which I mean grammatical gender, not the current politically vogue meaning of "gender."
We don't need to disregard thousands of years of knowledge because the authors were unaware of what would be PC in their future. That would be puerile. ("Childish," from the Latin word for "boy.")
