A very opinionated article that likes to forget what C was (an assembly language with a better syntax) and what C++ was (C with classes).
The examples are dubious and won't ever make their way to production code.
It also seems that the author just discovered that they are low-level languages. I've never found any serious book on the subject claiming the opposite.
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.
The examples are dubious and won't ever make their way to production code.
It also seems that the author just discovered that they are low-level languages. I've never found any serious book on the subject claiming the opposite.