Is this analogy valid? I'm really not sure:
I just get a feeling that divers who only know dive computers may be like drivers who rely completely on the GPS, can't read a map and really have no idea of where they are. Side note: I'm amazed there are people in that situation.
The GPS has it's place. In a city you don't know, with one way streets, to a specific hard to get to address. As a native New Yorker on a trip through there, I disregarded the GPS (just on for the fun of it), because I knew it would take me into chaos). But maps can be wrong too, if poorly written or out of date.
Dive and decompression theory is the same whether you use tables or a computer, so students get the knowledge. We all know computers are based on tables and are theoretical anyway--at least until they can actually measure an individual's body N (or O2) content. Not sure if even that type computer should eliminate tables. One always must keep in mind with a computer that it tells you the theoretical bottom time left--no real margin for error, unlike tables' square profiles. The computer fails--you use your backup one (if you have the means to buy a backup). Or you use your SPG, watch, and max depth. I guess either way works OK. But somehow, knowing that the max NDL on Air for 70 feet is 40 minutes to me is like knowing how to read a map. I don't know what would convince me to change my mind on that. This is a long thread on tables vs. computers, and IMO, they both are and always will be important. Computers are a great asset for multi-level diving--who wants to calculate their entire dive at 100' when they've been down there 5 minutes? Embrace the past and present as they both exist for our safety.