Given that you're talking about your "study of maths", I presume that you're a student. Well, Bourbaki books aren't textbooks. They're reference books. They're great when you need a theorem and you know you can just pickup your copy of "Lie algebras" and find it exactly where you expect it to be. And you know the proof will be there, and you know the proof of every single lemma used will be there. But it's not a learning tool. Think more about a dictionary/encyclopedia than a school book. You wouldn't learn to speak English by reading an English dictionary.
Sounds awesome. It's worth saying that the Serge Lang textbooks I have are awesome for learning maths from. I really love them - they don't treat me like an idiot and they have lots of problems to practise on - from basic to pretty hard, so I'm not negative about the group as a whole. I was genuinely curious.
The Bourbaki group has repeatedly emphasized that point and explained their goal and rationale with the Elements; and yet, people still blame them for all sorts of developments in post-graduate mathematics education. I find it rather unbecoming.
Having met current and past members of the Bourbaki group, I can say with certainty that the group in general is very much opposed to the whole "new math" trend that (thankfully) fell out of grace. But I guess it's easier to find bogeyman for all of society's problems.
