I agree that the practical side of things is quite a different specialism - computer architecture and compilers are different topics than the 'pure' study of algorithms. Today's emphasis on concurrency and parallelism does impact the theory, though; the worlds aren't entirely isolated.
I suppose my point is a semantic one: I consider the practical aspects to be a part of the study of algorithms.
> The real world performance issues area is heavily dependent on technology being used and changes over time, algorithm course is about basic platform neutral algorithms.
Well, the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm will never be practical.
> algorithm course is about basic platform neutral algorithms
There's no such thing. That's why I mentioned Coppersmith-Winograd.
Looking only at the complexity properties of the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm, you're unlikely to reach the (correct) conclusion that it's entirely useless for any practical application.
> Those real time considerations should be taught, but in more courses that are focused on coding itself and by people who are focused on that area, are good at it and can explain it in depth.
Agree, except to nitpick that it's necessary to develop a solid understanding of computer architecture, which may or may not fall under 'coding'. (That sort of expertise is beyond the knowledge of most coders.) Again, that's just semantics.
> A single prof does not need to be good everything and every course does not need to teach everything.
Agree completely, but it's important not to oversell the theory.
> There's no such thing. That's why I mentioned Coppersmith-Winograd.
Ok, but that is purely theoretical nitpick that has nothing whatsoever with what we are talking about. Algorithm courses dont teach Coppersmith-Winograd unless you are in some very special course that is designed for those few people who want exactly that out of interest and curiosity.
> Agree completely, but it's important not to oversell the theory.
The thread is about whether it was shocking for algo prof to not know C++ few dozen years ago. It is not, regardless of how useful C++ and architecture is.
I agree that the practical side of things is quite a different specialism - computer architecture and compilers are different topics than the 'pure' study of algorithms. Today's emphasis on concurrency and parallelism does impact the theory, though; the worlds aren't entirely isolated.
I suppose my point is a semantic one: I consider the practical aspects to be a part of the study of algorithms.
> The real world performance issues area is heavily dependent on technology being used and changes over time, algorithm course is about basic platform neutral algorithms.
Well, the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm will never be practical.
> algorithm course is about basic platform neutral algorithms
There's no such thing. That's why I mentioned Coppersmith-Winograd.
Looking only at the complexity properties of the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm, you're unlikely to reach the (correct) conclusion that it's entirely useless for any practical application.
> Those real time considerations should be taught, but in more courses that are focused on coding itself and by people who are focused on that area, are good at it and can explain it in depth.
Agree, except to nitpick that it's necessary to develop a solid understanding of computer architecture, which may or may not fall under 'coding'. (That sort of expertise is beyond the knowledge of most coders.) Again, that's just semantics.
> A single prof does not need to be good everything and every course does not need to teach everything.
Agree completely, but it's important not to oversell the theory.