Odd intuition, since you never store i back after incrementing. Also, I believe i++ might increment after the comparison rather than before, vs. ++i incrementing first
The article talks about a similar code snippet being optimized out by the compiler because i++ can never be less than i originally was (unless you take into account the actual behavior of computers).
I think they're saying that the assembly translation doesn't store back `i`, whereas the C version does, so it's a not straightforward to assume that the assembly compiled from the C won't do that.
