Thats just a consequence of sample rate as a whole. The entire linear control space is intricately tied to frequency domain, so you have to sample at a rate at least twice higher than your highest frequency event for accurate capture, as per Nyquist theorem.
All of that stuff is used in industry because a lot of regulation (for things like aircraft) basically requires your control laws to be linear so that you can prove stability.
In reality, when you get into non linear control, you can do a lot more stuff.
I did a research project in college where we had an autonomous underwater glider that could only get gps lock when it surfaced, and had to rely on shitty MEMS imu control under water. I actually proposed doing a neural network for control, but it got shot down because "neural nets are black boxes" lol.
True. I have often encountered motion controllers where the implementer failed to realize that calculating derived variables like acceleration from position and velocity using a direct derivative formula will violate the Nyquist condition, and therefore yields underperforming controllers or totally noisy signal inputs to them. You either need to adjust your sample or control loop rates, or run an appropriate estimator. Depending on the problem it can be something sophisticated like an LQR/KF, or even in some cases a simple alpha-beta-gamma filter (poor version of a predictor-corrector process) can be adequate.
All of that stuff is used in industry because a lot of regulation (for things like aircraft) basically requires your control laws to be linear so that you can prove stability.
In reality, when you get into non linear control, you can do a lot more stuff. I did a research project in college where we had an autonomous underwater glider that could only get gps lock when it surfaced, and had to rely on shitty MEMS imu control under water. I actually proposed doing a neural network for control, but it got shot down because "neural nets are black boxes" lol.