Not at all. Programming has become specialized since its inception; there are systems programmers and application programmers. The former creates the tools used by the later.
But, I expect the systems programmers to know not only the ins and outs of the current technologies, but what came before them. The past is full of beautiful architectures that didn't succeed for commercial reasons in their time, but would be perfect candidates to make a comeback in some form in the future. Even if we have to form a vigilante group of hacking do-gooders who will mail architects copies of important texts and papers (a la GvR and SICP ;-)
Needless to say, MPI is not one such "lost beauty", more like a committee designed piece of industry infrastructure. MPI == HPC.
Walk to the CS section of any big university library and scan the shelves for the purple and gray "LNCS" books (Lecture Notes in Computer Science.) then weep in sorrow.
Not only is worse better, but industry seems to be at odds with good design.
The examples are simply too numerous and any examples would only be a poor and narrow representative, skewed to my tastes and my ignorance.
All I know is that we deserve better than this; a combination of MIPS, Smalltalk, Lisp, and Amoeba as mainstream platforms would have been nice.
But, I expect the systems programmers to know not only the ins and outs of the current technologies, but what came before them. The past is full of beautiful architectures that didn't succeed for commercial reasons in their time, but would be perfect candidates to make a comeback in some form in the future. Even if we have to form a vigilante group of hacking do-gooders who will mail architects copies of important texts and papers (a la GvR and SICP ;-)
Needless to say, MPI is not one such "lost beauty", more like a committee designed piece of industry infrastructure. MPI == HPC.