He makes very few good points. There is much to mock about C++, but he hasn't hit on any of them. Actually, it's pretty clear by some of his comments that if he's used C++, his knowledge has long rusted ([] to initialize arrays? sorry. no. that's {}. If you're critiquing a language, please learn it's syntax first.) Anyways, let's take a few points where he totally misses the ball:

  Please, please don’t add language features just to make
  the lives of library designers easier. Add features to
  make the average programmer’s life easier.

     Seriously? You don't think that being able to write 
     libraries that integrate with the language seamlessly
     will make the programmer's life easier? You think that
       std::vector<int> blah;
       blah.push(0);
       blah.push(1);
       blah.push(2);
     beats
       std::vector<int> blah = {0,1,2};

  ...The fact that in contravention of who-knows- 
  how-many-years of tradition, return type is going 
  after the function and parameter names?

     Hey, just like every functional language that you
     spent the last few paragraphs praising. If you'd
     complained about it being inconsistent, you may have
     even had a point! something like
        int anon(...){...}
     would probably have been a cleaner syntax, despite
     being hell to parse (what in C++ isn't hell to 
     parse, though?)

I could go on, but I've got stuff to do. Still, if you're going to rant, please make it a well-informed rant! For the most part,the C++ FQA still applies to C++0x, among many others; plenty specific to C++0x

This really reads like a "WAHH! C++ isn't Python or Java!" post. only by someone that barely passed his C++ class in college.

Edit: Fix up formatting.