Given the number of Googlers involved with producing this article, I'm more surprised by them not using TeX quotation marks correctly than the result of the competition. (Not to mention using crappy tables with way too many ruled lines which do nothing to aid understanding of the organisation of the tables.)
Experience frequently shows that people that overlook such details writing an article will often by nature be weak C++ team programmers. More than with most other languages, good C++ coding demands someone who is intrinsically observant, obsessively perfectionist and aware of often obscure side effects and implications of everything they write. This is obviously important on the most basic level so that they don't make mistakes, but even more important that they understand how other people could misinterpret complex code and algorithms and potential consequences.
It is this last level of empathy that is the sign of great C++ programmers vs. the good or clever. "Clever" solitary programmers (such as some of those drawn to perl) are in fact the worst to have in C++ team programming scenarios where their desire to demonstrate their own ability often ends up with some over-templated prematurely optimised nightmare which is then left as a trap for someone seeking to modify it later on.