You're certainly correct, but I don't understand why you're phrasing this as an objection rather than as a rationale for how the language is specified.
Personally, I enjoy that the C standard makes a bunch of guarantees that I can use for my reasoning about correctness. Of course I can only get so far reasoning in abstract, language-defined terms and ignoring the execution environment, but where it is sufficient, being able to forget about operating system minutiae is certainly a relief.
Since the main thrust of the article is that C++'s language-imposed rules are overly complicated, restricting the perspective to the language specification seems reasonable.
Personally, I enjoy that the C standard makes a bunch of guarantees that I can use for my reasoning about correctness. Of course I can only get so far reasoning in abstract, language-defined terms and ignoring the execution environment, but where it is sufficient, being able to forget about operating system minutiae is certainly a relief.
Since the main thrust of the article is that C++'s language-imposed rules are overly complicated, restricting the perspective to the language specification seems reasonable.