I personally don’t see the rationale in critiquing introductory analysis texts which were written 50+ years ago. After all, most—if not all—of the material was developed pre 1900s. What is the problem, aside from typesetting?Other than Garling's three volumes, there's also the thre volumes by Amman and Escher, which can again be unequivocally recommended. And also the books by David Bressoud. Zorich is fine as well. I just don't see the rationale in using a book which came out when Elvis Pressley was singing "You ain't nothin' but a hound dog."
Postscript: And the three or four volumes by Stein and Shakarchi are also fine.