Rust was still years away from 1.0 when this was written. If we consider Rust as it is today, it would address some of the author’s complaints about C++, but not all. Rust’s error handling is more explicit and supports fallible “constructors” (Rust doesn’t actually have a true concept of a constructor) – but it doesn’t support fallible destructors, and the standard library notably lacks the ability to cleanly handle out-of-memory conditions. Privacy is more flexible, and there’s not as much of a strict “object-oriented” focus. On the other hand, intrusive lists are arguably even worse than in C++, because they require a lot of unsafe code and don’t play well with the borrow checker (in particular, you can’t enforce unique access).
