I've only skimmed the article but to me it sounds like what the author wants is essentially assembly language, where everything fits in 5 columns: label, opcode, 2 operands, comment.
Yes-and-no, I think. Limited usability of assembly language comes from limited resources (registers, operations) available to programmer, that leads to (so) many simple steps for more complicated tasks.
But, high-level language can offer a very interesting possibilities, even if it was not created for such kind of programming. For example, some time ago I made another attempt to emulate family of 65xxx. Previous versions were written in typical manner, like work of every other programmer on Earth.
A new approach, when a code was written in more regular way (see link below), like mentioned tabular-one, gave me excellent results. I was able to fully understood a program and processor logic and finally I was able to re-create a most magical command for 65xx: SBC/ADC with BCD support in very straightforward and clear way (especially for a cpu-like logic).
I have come to the same conclusion for a tracker that I am working on that is targeting the steam deck.
I designed an instruction set that is reasonably convenient to input via the gamepad controllers. Instead of typing, one selects instructions and operands from lists of options. It's surprisingly fluid to input and this makes it impossible to input invalid programs.
My current language is based on Forth, which is a better fit as that allows me to use more horizontal space and not have to think about registries and memory addresses. Similar to Forth my tabular format works with a stack based model where data flows implicitly between expressions.
It's not great for usability though :)