> The article mentions assembly once. But it's not an argument about how assembly is "low level"
It is, though:
> Think of programming languages as belonging on a continuum, with assembly at one end
The article explicitly states that assembly is the end of the continuum, that it is the lowest of the low-level. Therefore, it is not making the argument that assembly is not low-level. But the exact same arguments it makes to distinguish C as not low-level can be applied to assembly. The entire article is based on a fundamental logical error.
It is, though:
> Think of programming languages as belonging on a continuum, with assembly at one end
The article explicitly states that assembly is the end of the continuum, that it is the lowest of the low-level. Therefore, it is not making the argument that assembly is not low-level. But the exact same arguments it makes to distinguish C as not low-level can be applied to assembly. The entire article is based on a fundamental logical error.