As has been stated, the first example is a classic "dangling modifier." By dangling modifier, I mean that your sentence has an dependent clause (As a skilled programmer ...) that isn't modifying or supporting an independent clause.
So in other words, the meaning of the sentence, "As a skilled computer programmer, this new language is crap," is unclear.
To me, that says,"This new language is crap as a skilled programmer."
The second example fixes the problem by making clear what the clause is modifying, which is clearly you. You are correct in your assessment that the subject of the sentence is unambiguous only in the second sentence. There's no subject at all in your first; or rather, the subject in the first example is "this new language."
At the very least, every sentence must have a bare minimum on one independent clause (i.e. a clause that is by itself a complete sentence). While your sentence does technically contain an independent clause, it's functioning similarly to a dependent one because, logically, the language in and of itself can't possibly do programming, suggesting that the subject was omitted.
This is not a big error in speech among peers, but in formal writing, it would be taboo. I understood it because it's the only logical/possible interpretation. This is an error that I'd avoid in academic/professional writing and is something I would avoid both in speech and in writing in front of a prospective employer. But, in this case, it's more a case of speaking/writing to your audience.
Note that while your example was clear despite not being grammatically correct, there are times when dangling modifiers can make a sentence have multiple meanings.
For example, does "As a skilled programmer, this language is in simple English," mean that the language in question written in simple English? Or does it instead imply that it appears as simple English in the eyes of a skilled programmer?
"Also" when used in the beginning of a phrase is usually used to introduce a new point. (In any case "also" usually refers to the previous clause)
"Also, have you considered using [z]?" - here "also" is just used to introduce a new topic and the meaning is equivalent to "Why do you want to use [x] and not [y]? Have you considered using [z]?" Whether 'z' was meant to be used in addition or as a replacement to 'x', or to 'y', is unspecified.
Alternatives:
"Have you also considered using [z]?" = you should consider using [z] - again, whether [z] is an addition or a replacement and to what, [x] or [y], is not known.
"Have you considered also using [z]?" = you should consider using [z] as well as [y] or [x] - whether [z] is an addition to [x] or [y] is still unknown but in this case it is not a replacement
The question of whether [z] would be in addition/replacement to [x] or [y] might be obvious from context but not from the grammar:
"Why do you want to drink water and not tea? Also, have you considered drinking coffee?" - is coffee in addition or as a replacement? And to what, tea or water?
Best Answer
Although the modifier "only available to members" makes "posts" more specific and thus would seem to require the definite Article, it still hasn't made the Noun completely specific.
You can say "posts" is halfway from being general to being specific.
This is often confusing. Consider this other "middle" example. This is correct:
In your example, not adding an article is suitable because the Noun "posts" is specific but still general.
The alternative you're thinking of should be something like: