I always hated Bourbaki. They had the attitude they were going to be self contained and derive everything from foundations, which sucked because, they could not do that in 1 book, and you want links to all the other literature, which makes your book worth 100X more, and they were not providing. The resulting books were then pretty useless and horrible compared to something which did not take their attitude. Probably Russell+Whitehead was even more horrible than Bourbaki. I wasn't going to read either. However, in the case of their book on Lie theory, Bourbaki wasn't so bad for me, it did actually help me learn. And I suppose you might argue that the recent drive toward computer-verified proofs, is somehow a vindication of Bourbaki, sort of?