Good article, but it only demonstrate his ignorance on existing cache-oblivious data structures...
He's talking about people's everyday understanding of data structures, including his own. That the data structure he described already existed when he banged it out is beside the point; most folks don't know about it, most CS programs don't teach it, and most software doesn't use it.
That's sort of like saying, "Well, all special relativity does is show Einstein's ignorance of Lorentz's work."
It's true in some sense, but ultimately an unproductive sentiment.
The audience of this article was a lot of people that knew of the problem, and knew of research into cache-oblivouis algorithms. This is a long ways from not citing somebody, it's preaching to somebody as if they are ignorant when they're a fair ways ahead of you. Quite annoying when encountered.
I really wish the theory and applied side split off into separate departments or divisions just like how math and applied math go their separate ways.
irrc there is only a constant factor of time difference between the two.
In general there are lots of datastructures that are wonderful on paper but whose constant time factors make them infeasible in practice.