I agree with you it's a very opinionated article but despite I program every single day on C and C++, I agree with some points he claims. For example, I think the implicit conversions in C++ it's very problematic. Another point is regarding undefined behaviors they still surprise me.

Even I agree with the part in he complains about the size and complexity of the c++ standard.

And the third footnote is simply true.

My complaints are more oriented to C++ than C, often I feel that something went wrong, and we fail to try to reduce the complexity.

When I remember the following quote "A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant." Alan J. Pelis. I always remember modern C++ and I realized how regardless of an apparently simpler syntax, we start to think about l-value, r-value discard, contexpr, we start paying attention to details no related to our original problem.

That's why I feel you are right C++ is a low-level language, but sometimes I feel the modern C++ is not a higher level, but even a lower level.

Sometimes I ask myself if despite the lack of standard library and high-level structures if working with c and Glibc it's higher or lower level, my experience tells me that sometimes I can concentrate better on my problem I try to solve, instead of struggle with the compiler.