This would be a better article if the UB in the C++ example wasn't blindingly obvious-- no C++ programmer worth a damn would ever write this.
I don't have anything against taking pride in one's skill and craftsmanship, but excusing a tool's failings purely on the basis that one needs more skill to wield it and avoid those failings? I want to have that same level of skill and have my tool multiply my skill's output to the max, not have my skill wasted coaxing my tool to perform correctly.
If the implication is that the tool requiring more skill gives commensurate benefits, fair enough, but not if it's just hand-waving away obvious downsides.
It would be one thing if this required skill, but this example is downright silly. Some other people here have posted more reasonable version, that might actually occur in the real world(like the example with std::span)
It’s a difference between “look this is Wally” (duh, of course) and a game of “Where’s Wally?”.
Whenever a CVE is discussed people say that the error is obvious, and no good programmer would write like that. It’s easy in hindsight.