>>18This is untrue. A programming language is unrelated to the physical machinery and the program that compiles the language in to binary or some other form interpreted by another program. Even if a C compiler is used to create a compiler for some arbitrary pet project language which then uses it's own compiler to compile programs in the new language. You're not gaining anything unless the new language is either far more expressive or you can convince a lot of people to create very useful and appealing software for your own turd language. The operations of the machine do not change because of the pixels you view on your screen that make up the letters and symbols.
You could make the same unreasonably ignorant argument with Turing Machines. Since they don't account for limits and constraints that permeate the physical world they necessarily are unable to guarantee any kind of memory or overflow safety. Of course then you would be missing the whole entire point as you arbitrarily place significance on current electric machines with silicone chips.
It's an arbitrary and pointless debate.