It's not though. Programming languages, like assembly before them, are deterministic. If you run the same C code again the same environment, it will do the same thing, and altering the code will alter the behaviour correspondingly. It's possible to reason about it. The same does not apply to LLMs. You can't reason about their behavior, when means you can't build anything non-trivial with them. All that is mentioned in the article.

You have no idea what an abstraction is. You're describing the technological sophistication that comes with maturing science and completely missing out on the details. C was a hack because UNIX's authors couldn't fit a Fortran compiler onto their target machine. Automatic memory management predates C. Natural-language processing has been tried every AI summer; it was big in the 60s and big in the 80s (and big in the 90s in Japan) and will continue to be big until AI winter starts again.

Natural-language utterances do not have an intended or canonical semantics, and pretending otherwise is merely delaying the painful lesson. If one wants to program a computer — a machine which deals only in details — then one must be prepared to specify those details. There is no alternative to specification and English is a shitty medium for it.