Right. And doesn't that apply to programming languages too? Aren't the ways that Python is irregular to support real-world needs (the Zen of Python even says "Practicality beats purity") worth CS students studying?
No, because this is computer science and not software engineering. The best introductory language is the one that allows to express the concepts that are presented in the cleanest way possible. If you want "real-world needs" then drop out and work for a software company. The purpose of universities is not to cater to the needs of industry - to pump out code monkeys.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly - you're arguing that it is not the place of universities to address real-world needs? History and economics faculty should have nothing to offer to politicians? Biologists in universities should study model organisms, leaving the study of humans to the medical industry, and biology degree programs should not pump out health monkeys? Law professors should discuss specially-constructed legal systems that are not used by real-world jurisdictions so that concepts can be presented in the cleanest way possible? Music programs should avoid teaching actual Bach chorales because his real-world music sometimes included parallel fifths?
I didn't say anything about areas whose research focus coincides with 'real-world needs', I specifically talked about programming languages and concepts. And no, universities should not teach micro services, enterprise Java code, or the latest frontend frameworks. But yeah, keep twisting my words around.
Sorry, I'm still not sure I understand. You're saying that computer science is one of the specific areas whose research focus does not and should not coincide with "real-world needs," in contrast to history, economics, biology, law, and music? Or am I misunderstanding you badly?
What other fields of study are like computer science in that they shouldn't be about real-world needs? For a given discipline, how do you tell which of the two categories it falls into?