This is one of the issues that I have with how CS and software engineering is taught in universities. Yes, you could look at this as "vocational training" and

This is one of the issues that I have with how CS and software engineering is taught in universities. Yes, you could look at this as "vocational training" and not "education". But you could also look at this as education with a hands-on component using commonly available tools. Sure, you could have students memorize a list of git commands. That would be terrible. But you could also teach students to understand how a distributed VCS works, the graph operations involved in commands like "checkout", "merge", and "push", and the underlying way of thinking about data and how it changes. That both provides students with an extremely useful practical skill as well as setting them up for understanding much more complicated topics like CRDTs and distributed data synchronization. And when the tool that was used gets replaced, so what? If the concepts used by the tool were taught correctly, then picking up a new one should be trivial. I've been through countless IDEs and debuggers and version control systems in my career, but the reason I can do that is because at some point I learned the first one of each and was then able to transition that knowledge along the way. "Training" gets looked down in a way that seems actively harmful to me. Just because a tool might not be relevant in the future doesn't mean there's not a huge amount of value that can be gained from learning it today.