I don’t know why he says learn real analysis and linear algebra to talk to engineers when I doubt 90% of engineers took one analysis course unless they’re Ph.Ds.
> Computer scientists and traditional engineers need to speak the same language--a language rooted in real analysis, linear algebra, probability and physics.
This is saying that the ontological common-ground between Computer Science and Engineering is rooted in, among other things, Real Analysis -- not that either Computer Science or Engineering majors need to take a course called "Real Analysis".
It does recommend specific math classes, but a class on Real Analysis isn't in those recommendations.
I think that the US's major Engineering-accreditation agency, ABET, requires most Engineering disciplines to have both Linear Algebra and Multivariate Calculus (also called "Calculus III") as core courses. Many students opt to take additional math beyond the basic core classes.
Pretty shocking how little math most CS programs require in comparison.
But a course actually bearing the name "Real Analysis" is typically a 300 or 400 level course, rigorously proof-based, and not needed by an undergrad engineer.
His standards are high, but fair.
But they do learn a certain kind of math. Personally I think a strong foundation in statistics is warranted. The calculus goes far beyond what is useful on the job.