That depends on who "we" is. Physicist usually call a two-index tensor
a matrix, even if it is a 1 by 1 tensor. I know that many engineering
books just fall back to "row matrices" and "column matrices" for
vectors.
As a physicist myself, I'm not part of this "norm"... Tensors in physics have a physical meaning, matrices don't. Matrices are far too general, they don't need to transform covariantly. But call all you want, a rank 17 tensor in 1 dimension is still a scalar, no matter how pretty and more sophisticated it would be to be to call it a tensor. An equally valid point would be to call all real numbers Octonions with zero imaginary part, and argue that there are no "true" real numbers... But I don't think such pedantic matters on semantics has much to add to the discussion. One should use the lingo which one is used to...
Matlab indeed treats everything as a matrix (I never argued to oppose it), but not all definitions need to be "vectorized". You can be equally happy by making a function that only accepts scalars. As in Mathematica, not all functions have attribute Listable.
Matlab own error handling call 1x1 matrices scalars, so, why can't we all? Just because internally they are two-dimensional arrays? Should we still can a matrix a matrix if it has rank different then 2? Or call it an array? Tensor?
In Comsol, you can only modify vectors, tensors, component-wisely, so, there is no need to have a high-level representation in terms of dot products, matrix multiplication etc.