The article mentions C++ three times, all in contexts equating it with C. But C++, as it is coded today, is a very different language from C, and does not suffer from the problems that make C an extremely poor choice for starting any new project that might matter.
All the article's arguments for C apply substantially moreso to C++. Thus, the article leaves us with no objectively plausible reason ever to code in C, except where artificial constraints mandate it, or where merit doesn't matter. (I leave to the reader to decide where Linux and BSD kernels fit in that.)
There is especially no excuse for systemd to be coded in C.
All the article's arguments for C apply substantially moreso to C++. Thus, the article leaves us with no objectively plausible reason ever to code in C, except where artificial constraints mandate it, or where merit doesn't matter. (I leave to the reader to decide where Linux and BSD kernels fit in that.)
There is especially no excuse for systemd to be coded in C.