[invisal]

you mean the comp1led appl1cat1on? lol so is every other comp1led app. that doesnt make them low level. that comp1lat1on process 1s exactly the abstract1on we're talk1ng about regard1ng what def1nes a low and h1gh level language. a h1gh level language 1s not mach1ne spec1f1c code. 1t goes through a process to convert 1t to mach1ne spec1f1c code. assembler though 1s mach1ne spec1f1c.

Yes, most programming language is compiled into machine code and run directly on the processor.
It was a definition that you provided and now you denied your own definition.

Low-level languages can be converted to machine code without using a compiler or interpreter, and the resulting code runs directly on the processor.

1s 1t not obv1ous? why 1s th1s so compl1cated? 1f you are wr1t1ng mach1ne spec1f1c code, 1ts low level. 1f you are wr1t1ng code that 1s comp1led and converted to mach1ne code, 1ts not.

This is how you define "little abstract", but other might define it differently.

C is considered a third generation programming language, since it is structured and abstracts from machine code (historically, no second generation programming language emerged that was particularly suitable for low-level programming). However, many programmers today might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It therefore readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers.

This is taken from Wikipedia.

So, like I have said previously, C might consider low-level programming language for some programmer
and might consider high-level programming language for other. However, in 10 more years,
most people will consider it "low-level" programming language.