It seemed really unfair the way the "valid programs" was slightly out of bounds on C (meaning there are some things you can do in assembler, but not C, to which I agree); but then as he starts removing more and more features, the "valid programs" circle is wholly inside his imaginary language construct; and no matter how much is taken away, we're to believe all possible valid programs can still be represented? Nonsense.

I agree. I stopped taking him seriously when he wrote that Java didn't have pointers. (Java's references are pointers w/o arithmetic. But they're still pointers: they're occupying space and are allocated separately from the pointee.)

Also, in the summary list of features to be removed: in that case the diagrams of "Languages that disallow X" should all be mutually intersected, and I suspect that the resulting intersection would exclude too many valid programs (i.e., you'd end up with the graph "languages taking away the wrong features).