You make a fair point but I think it raises a more general question that has come up before plenty of times and that is whether classical computer science is go

You make a fair point but I think it raises a more general question that has come up before plenty of times and that is whether classical computer science is good training for 95% of students. Take civil engineers. Yes they will do some physics but usually only basic stuff in first year. After that they focus more on the higher level systems they will be working with because most working civil engineers will never need anything more advanced than first year physics. So if the person who posted this Ask HN is not going to do CS research (or the like) then Domain Driven Design might be as fundamental to their education as structural engineering is to a civil engineer. The fact is that nearly all systems that we work with are composed of services/models of some kind. DDD deals with these but more importantly deals with the domain where you can make the most impact as a working engineer (as opposed to a scientist who is like a force multiplier but we need a lot less of them). "Domain work is messy and demands a lot of complicated new knowledge that doesn’t seem to add to a computer scientist’s capabilities. Instead, the technical talent goes to work on elaborate frameworks, trying to solve domain problems with technology. Learning about and modeling the domain is left to others. Complexity in the heart of software has to be tackled head-on. To do otherwise is to risk irrelevance" - Eric Evans