I'm enjoying Ousterhaut's "A Philosophy of Software Design", but it is striking how much it is shaped and limited by the languages that are implicitly considered (mostly, imperative OO languages).
One oddity is the view of the class as the only real scope at which one can build abstractions. The idea that one can use little abstractions to build big abstractions, without cluttering the final abstraction to be presented to the user, is nowhere in sight.
Most shockingly to me, I've found no reference to types as a design tool. Sure, precise names help you avoid confusing physical block ids and logical ones. But wouldn't a type-based distinction be way better?