>After re-reading the post once again, because I honestly thought I was missing something obvious that would make the whole thing make sense, I started to wonder if the author actually understands the scope of a computer language.

The problem is you restrict the scope of a computer language to the familiar mechanisms and artifacts (parsers, compilers, formalized syntax, etc), instead of taking to be "something we instruct the computer with, so that it does what we want".

>How does this even work? There is no universe I can imagine where a natural language can be universal, self descriptive, non ambiguous, and have a smaller footprint than any purpose specific language that came before it.

Doesnt matter. Who said it needs to be "universal, self descriptive, non ambiguous, and have a smaller footprint than any purpose specific language that came before it"?

It's enough that is can be used to instruct computers more succintly and at a higher level of abstraction, and that a program will come out at the end, which is more or less (doesn't have to be exact), what we wanted.