I learned more about modern compilation by reading and implementing "From System F to Typed Assembly Language" than I did from the compilers course I took.
I'd guess that most people who are completely new to compilers don't know how to read denotational semantics, either. Handing that paper to them would just reinforce the "compilers are perceived to be magical artifacts" view that Crenshaw is trying to dispel.
He intentionally avoid Greek letters, let alone denotational semantics. I don't doubt that it's a good paper, but the people Crenshaw is addressing probably wouldn't be able to read it (yet).
The title of the post is "Want to Write a Compiler? Just Read These Two Papers." I upped the ante by proposing they just read one better paper.
I think if you had actually bothered to read the paper rather than make assumptions you would find the word "denotation" doesn't even appear in the paper.
I think most people would look at the top of page 7, go "eek!", and leave with the idea that compilers are insurmountable magic. That's all.
For me, being able to read that stuff came much later than learning about compilers. (I haven't read that specific paper yet. Sent it to my kindle, though.)
I could similarly recommend some papers on compiling via CPS, but the people Crenshaw is addressing would just find them intimidating - they're still getting to grips with the basic techniques and terminology.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/papers/tal-toplas.pdf