Except modern C also has plenty of abstractions, devs wrongly assume it doesn't.
Then get surprised when it doesn't map to the SIMD/SIMT NUMA machine their code actually executes on.
such a strawman again... You don't want to be writing explicit platform specific SIMD most of the time. You just want to write a dumb function that doesn't do any non-obvious calls, doesn't cause thread contention, doesn't hide complexity, isn't going to be a nightmare to change later, no surprises.
I am talking about self-inflicted complexity that is entirely within the C(++) machine model. Avoid that complexity and you're pretty good already. Only drop down to concrete hardware arch level where it makes sense. But largely, the C machine model is still very much suited as a model for actual hardware. Writing straightforward obvious code allows you to stay in control of memory layout and the data transformation paths. It easily gets you within <<2x of what you could achieve with hand coded assembler for the >90% of the code that are pretty boring and straightforward. And obviously you couldn't get the work done in time when coding everything in assembler.
There is not much real evidence for "devs wrongly assume" and as someone writing numerical code (clusters, NUMA, SIMD, etc.) I think C is still the ideal tool for this.