I don't think SQL is particularly crufty, but I'm willing to admit that's highly debatable -- depends on your definition of "crufty," really.

However, the examples in the linked article are not examples of cruft.

I'm using this example of "cruft":

    Cruft is a jargon word for anything that 
    is left over, redundant and getting in the 
    way. It is used particularly for defective, 
    superseded, useless, superfluous, or dysfunctional 
    elements in computer software. 

Nearly all of the examples in the linked article are based on core SQL sorting and grouping concepts (with a sprinkle of trivalue NULL logic) that have been around since Day One.

I also don't think they really illustrate flaws/gotcha/etc in SQL itself. Nor were they meant to, I don't think... these highly pathological examples are examples of the sorts of pathologically ambiguous things a compiler needs to handle, but are not representative of anything I've seen in 20+ years of real world SQL experience.