What about the author's complaints about exponentially increasing code complexity when introducing new features or new exception types? I feel like the author made an attempt to write c++ the "correct" way and found it unsuitable for the software's goals (zero undefined behavior).
There's been several extended discussions on this, some involving the author, and in virtually every case he's been berating the language for doing things a particular way but often because it's just one way of many and he's ignorant of the other ways of doing it.
There was some bitching about allocators, for example, as if he didn't know about the C++ allocator override feature which isn't even hard to implement. Then there was more confusion about template objects for things like `vector` where he was using them as you might a C linked list library, then complaining that you had to allocate twice as many objects.
I think the author is dimly aware of what C++ really is, and just refuses to play along because they'd rather be writing C code anyway.
John Carmack could probably tear apart every single one of those complaints in ten minutes and have time left over to talk about his new CTO position. That's because Carmack spends the time to learn his tools inside and out and doesn't simply bitch about things being not to his liking.
