https://www.unco.edu/nhs/mathematical-sciences/faculty/miller/pdf/euclid20thcenturyrivalsmiller.pdf

> As previously discussed, Euclid’s Elements was seen as the gold standard in careful deductive reasoning from the time it was written until relatively recently, but it is now often viewed as being antiquated, inherently informal, and nsalvageable. So we might wonder which view is
correct: are Euclid’s methods of proof valid, or are they not

The author already makes a failcy here. A work can be outdated and lost it's usefullness and still containts good formal proofs. Consider Newton's work.

The author is still right about one thing. Usually, modern mathematicans doesn't work in formal logic.