> Which would have the positive knock-on effect of the textbook being sufficiently obsolete every year or so that the students could no longer trade it in for c

> Which would have the positive knock-on effect of the textbook being sufficiently obsolete every year or so that the students could no longer trade it in for credit, saving the bookstores money! That's naive. E.g. SIMD is here since a good time and going to stay. So are GPGPU, with now quite similar architectures for tons of chips. And Computer Science can actually be about science for real computers, and computers are not 8086 nor PDP11 anymore, and have never been a turing machine. So there actually is some existing generic CS and ongoing research that cares about cache effects and so over. Maybe it is applied CS if you want, and some kind of pure CS should not care about that, but I really don't see what should be the criteria to decide which is what anyway, so IMO there should not be any (but I do not mean that all research should care about e.g. cache effects, just that it is not really useful to attempt to distinguish between those which do and those which don't). We don't teach advanced math by only showing what was done at e.g. the beginning of algebra. Neither should we stick to only basic subjects in computer science.