If you are interested in TypeScript for the browser, you might also like --erasableSyntaxOnly option of typescript >5.8. The only tool needed for it is the typescript compiler itself, so toolchain is kept to a minimum.
Bruno Latour’s "The Pasteurization of France" is about Louis Pasteur and the creation and success of germ theory. It does explain it not by focussing on Pasteur per se, but by showing how different groups of people adapted it for different goals.
These examples (dogs,cars...) are badly used in most programming books, but they can make sense if you show them in context of a small game or whatever else actually draws you an (inter) active virtual car or animal (which made OOP click for me, using processing). Printing "meow" and "woof" in the terminal, however, only makes sense as a demonstration if you already know what it should demonstrate.
For learning about the basics of statistics, my go-to resource is "Discovering Statistics using [R/SPSS]" (Andy Field). "Improving Your Statistical Inferences" (Daniel Lakens) needs some basics, but covers a lot of intesting topics, including sequencial testing and equivalence tests (sometimes you want to know if a new thing is equivalent to the old)
I read his "learning processing" many years ago. It was the book that made programming made sense to me. The explanations are excellent, the outcomes interesting and it helped me to see why object orientation makes sense after fruitless attempts of understanding it using examples of different types of cars that print "wrooom wroom" to the terminal.
I knew the linked-in-the-article https://lindeloev.github.io/tests-as-linear/ which is also great. A bit meta on the widespread use of linear models: "Transcending General Linear Reality" by Andrew Abbott, DOI:10.2307/202114
You could ask for feedback on https://discourse.opensourcedesign.net/ where quite some UX designers in open source projects hang out.
I personally remember nokias flowella fondly, but I do not know if it does the same as wireflow.
Since some comments point out that the design looks old: I agree.
However, the framework’s author describes the usecase as building simple UIs for what otherwise would be used via the command line or for building UIs for cases when people can't or don’t want to learn a more complex framework (this could include HTML/CSS/JS, which is quite complex, if you do not know it yet!).
I also throught of ART as a fork of RawTherapee, also forked with the aim to make it easier to use.
I wondered if that is something hard to avoid: Over time features get added, usability worsens. This might be general, but it could apply to FOSS in particular, which often takes a modular approach (cue UNIX philosophy) and rarely includes structures where potentially useful features are rejected in order to keep the whole experience simple.
This is very similar to what Grudin suggests in his HCI history "From tool to partner": Apple used to be very usability and research focussed in the 80s and early 90s, but turned away from it with Jobs and went more look-driven — and had great success with it. Other companies followed. (Which does not mean that companies ignored graphic design before, but it was the more utilitarian parts of graphic design that were important focussing on distinct shapes, readability etc.)