My main objection was that some of the algorithms praised in theoretical CS have near pessimal behaviour on actual hardware, and have had so for a quarter of a century, yet these "details of implementation" were deemed a waste of educational bandwidth.
I've had a fair bit of communication with people in boths ends of CS education about that piece, and I think by and large most agree that I have a valid point there.
But nobody wants "Algoritms %03d" to turn into "Optimizing your code for $CORPS microarchitecture %03d", and modern architectures are horribly complicated, in particular from a performance point of view, so sifting out the most representative and relevant phenomena and finding a way of presenting them in education is not easy.
On CS TA told me that they hand out my article mid-semester, and ask the students to identify algorithms in their textbook which are robust or vulnerable to actual hardware performance. I'm torn between being flattered and thinking it is a bit of a cop-out.
As far as cache-oblivious algorithms go: I'll consider them when they prove they are worth their often formidable complexity.
Yes, it would be nice to never have to think about about page-sizes or cache-line widths and all that again, but if only people with a phd in those exact algorithms (many of which are patented) can debug programs which use them, the cost/benefit tilts.