> Do you think it is the responsibility of academia to teach "industry relevant stuff"?
I don't think that was what ibains was going for, though i don't fault you for seeing this in that comment. (Especially that i don't think this course suffers from that problem and generally i think things are rapidly improving on this front.)
That problem to me and i think to him too is that quite a lot of things that such courses tend to teach as well thought out, well working solutions and approaches just don't work very well and frequently i find comments on what's a 'good taste' solution and what isn't that are completely my understanding of the problem space which is why.
E.g. in parsing (as that's the topic he mentioned): First, lots of people just spend way too much time on it. And they focus on parts that are of zero use to beginners (like explaining all several grammar families) and then use obtuse parser generators that save no work and sometimes use them in bizarre way (like picking a lalr parser generator then hand editing the output to support a not-quite-lalr language). Meanwhile a recursive descent parser is easy to write, fast and gives pretty good error messages with _very_ little work. You do need to know enough about grammars to be able to write one down and know if it describes an ambiguous language etc so this should be taught, but you don't need to understand the language zoo well.