int var1, var2;"

Somewhat aside from the actual article, but this might actually be the least clear way to write a definition, since the pointer marker appears to belong to var1, but not the overall definition of int. Here is how I would automatically read the definitions:

"int var1, var2;"

Of type int (variable), create var1, var2.

"int var1, var2;"

Of type int and type * (pointer), create var1, var2.

"int var1, var2;"

Of type int, create pointer var1, pointer var2.

"int *var1, var2;"

Of type int, create pointer var1, default (variable) var2.

Not sure how this works for and against C, since the language definition is really old at this point and by the standards of its time C is really clear. But languages have moved on and a standard has emerged over the intervening time that is a bit more logical.

Also, I think this article is a real piece of fluff :).

    int *var1, var2;

The point is not that you can't do good things in C. The point is that it is very easy to do bad things in C. A good UI makes good things the natural way to do things, and actively discourages bad things. C's UI is the opposite.

I'd say this one is just a question of preference. I happen to like to be able to declare my variables together with my ponters.

A good UI makes good things the natural way to do things, and actively discourages bad things. C's UI is the opposite.

In my opinion, that's the beauty of C: unlike Java (and, to a little extent, C++) it doesn't dictate how you write your programs. You are free to shoot yourself in the foot, but you also get to decide exactly how you want your code to look and feel.

    int* var1;

I'm not sure what being ridiculously easy to make errors in has to do with dictating how to write your programs.