At this point the article lost all credibility with me.
At this point the article lost all credibility with me.
Unfortunately some of the implementation details do allow for seriously horrible code and some seriously horrible traps. But if you can clear the fog, and use "the good parts", it's actually pretty nice.
As for the article, I think it's very well written and seems to have a good overview of the language. Also, the author seems to have an above average experience level in an above average number of programming languages (guessing here), so it might be worth a read.
Since you aren't providing your sure-win idea changes, I can't be sure what you don't like but I can guess. All of them are well documented at this point. And they are easy to understand and avoid.