Are those instances of undefined behavior relevant to what's being discussed here? The vast majority undefined behavior people argue/warn/complain about, including the original article, is behavior that is explicitly defined to be undefined (I say that with the caveat that I almost never use C++ and I've never read any C++ standard closely, so my perception is biased towards C; things might be different for C++).
What I mean to say is that the "problem" of undefined behavior does seem to be intentionally introduced by the authors of the standard, not an oversight.
What I mean to say is that the "problem" of undefined behavior does seem to be intentionally introduced by the authors of the standard, not an oversight.