Also there may be a balance between "some hierarchy in the code so it can evolve" and adhoc code that just works for the current problem. Only having to write a new class for a new feature because everything else is handed smoothly is a bliss.
There are some other aspects to this idea of code economy: correctness and reusability. This definitely depends on the programming language.
In Java(or oop for that matter) you can get correctness but to get reusability you need a whole hierarchy of classes, lots of added code/cost.
In Python you get more reusability out of the box but to get correctness you need to add swaths of unit tests, lots of cost.
In contrast with a functional language such as Haskell you get both with less effort, fp plus a rich type system reduce code enourmosly.
I wish Rust would have gone with an ML syntax though, in particular the Hindley-Milner type signatures allow me to reason better about code reusability, the "fn" and braces just adds noise to me, too much Haskell I guess.
For example I could write a massive list comprehension in Python in one line that could solve my problem, but it would be much more difficult to read and would be a pain to modify. I'd much rather work with the 10 lines of code it would take to actually spell it out.