[themodelplumber]

Better really depends on who you are. Born academics can learn better by reading foundation libraries and principles, and they write articles advising others to do the same :-)

What you described as better could be a really good fit for business-first coding opportunists who would get annoyed by perceived inefficiencies and petty politics in academia...

The article is a terrific example of basic analysis BTW. This underappreciated skill can be a huge blindspot for opportunists...

[oreally]

No, even academia and pure theorists could take a fresh perspective with actual skin in the game in making software.

> The article is a terrific example of basic analysis BTW.

Hahaha. It's some cherry picked examples and you're already claiming it's 'a terrific example of basic analysis'. The hyperbole is real in software.

[johnnycerberus]

Reminds me of Nassim Taleb's works. Reading and rereading the standard library is a good way to learn a language or get depth. I don't see how reading an actual implementation can be considered academic, as it is real-life engineering. It is not pseudocode or theory, some algorithms in Java and C++ are using some ugly shortcuts that only an engineer would find interesting while an academic would think it's heresy.

[themodelplumber]

Cherry picking is 100% compatible with analysis, which is closed subjective logic, not open opportunistic logic. Plus I don't think the author is exactly trying to go head to head with your personal favorite method. Could be wrong though.