Isn’t math just manmade abstractions as well? I’m not saying they’re equally hard (I think maths is harder too), but you seem to be overly simplifying programming, under the assumption that the system you are working with and building on is actually well designed, rather than what is actually more likely (a munge of SOME clean design with many layers of hacks on top).
I think Maths is harder because the abstractions are higher level, have less intuitive bases, the feedback loop is longer and doesn’t have robust testing. I don’t think the abstractions themselves are that much harder in general, but getting an intuition and doing anything useful (correctly) at a really high level of abstraction is quite difficult.
Math is man made. It's a mash of notation for various ideas, more or less unambiguous, more or less rigorous. Some are more well designed than others. It's closer to natural language than programming languages.
Not every programming language has a concept of time. Sometimes that's a good thing, it depends on what you're used to. Math arguably has less mutable state than most typical programing languages.
Programming works with manmade abstractions, carefully designed to have very few interactions, keep mutable state contained, and to have all the parts structured in a hierarchy without recursion.
In math you have systems of equations that all reference each other. And they all happen at the same time because there's no steps and time or lines of code just 5 equations that all interact.
The atomic pieces are much larger and tied together and it inherently seems to require being able to fit nontrivial ideas in your head.
Programming lets you design a complex architecture one tiny piece at a time without considering other pieces.