You (somewhat like me in this instance) will want to understand what's actually happening. For that case the author has in fact provided more detail, relegated to a footnote. You decry this, but you (and I) are in a significant minority in this instance. We want to understand it properly, but I suspect the vast majority or readers won't. Or if they do, not yet.
Your comment is useful, and I will keep it in mind next time I write something. For reference, when I want to tuck away technical details I do it in side-bars so it's there to be read alongside the main text.
Here:
This reads like a normal human speaking, who was asked a question and elaborated. That's fine.
The problem with the OP's article was that I couldn't skim read it, because the code didn't make obvious sense in a "reading aloud" kind of way. It would have worked much better if the footnote had replaced, or been included as padding around the code. The skim readers would still have been happy, especially if there was a carefully placed paragraph break so they could "skip over the details," and I/we would have been happy too.
Also, two code snippets out of context are anything but real code, at least in my brain :)
In particular, the last 2-3 sentences where a complex procedure is defined in a few inline code snippets - and then the author continues as if the result is obvious.
It reminds me very much of when I read overly mathematical scientific publications (which I do a lot, being a PhD student.) In such papers, the authors often expect you to stop and spend 5 minutes reading a few symbols (perhaps reading a couple of Wikipedia articles along the way) before continuing. This makes the articles highly unreadable - I sometimes spend 2-3 days slowing working through the particularly poor ones. (Obviously, I only do this for highly relevant/useful papers!)
This article isn't in the same level of awful, obviously, but it did give me the same "I'm lost now, I should go back" feeling - which I thought was worth feeding back to the author, especially since they had provided the explanation, but they'd hidden it in a footnote.