Almost more as an exercise than anything else, I've occasionally tried to make a computer program as short as possible (see OAI-PMH and OpenURL 1.0 for example). The interesting thing is, in general the program was much better for the effort. Not that the OAI-PMH code is particularly readable, but that was just to get it on a T-shirt. Taking out the tricks would still result in a very short OAI harvester (maybe two pages instead of one) which would be both readable and relatively short.
Looking at some programs, I'm struck by the idea that when you see regularity and repetition in the code, everyone would be better off if it could be squeezed out. Usually this results in a shorter, easier to understand, and often faster program. I think this is one reason I like Python -- it doesn't require as much boiler-plate as languages like Java.
The master of this is Chuck Moore who invented (and seemingly spent his life in) Forth. Screen shots of his Forth code look almost like noise, but he's able to do things like sit down at a bare machine and bring up an operating system on it in a few hours. The operating system (along with editors, assemblers, and all your applications) would fit comfortably on a floppy disk (a few hundred kilobytes for those who've never used them). Or a VLSI design tool in 500 lines!
One thing to keep in mind is that it isn't how hard it is to understand each page of code that's important, but how hard it is to understand the whole program. I claim that one page of dense code that does what ten pages of looser code would do is easier to read, understand, and maintain.
I once wrote an incremental Forth compiler to run on OCLC's Sigma 9 machines (in assembler, of course). Can't say I'd recommend the language to anyone to program in now, but it certainly was both fast and compact, characteristics we really needed 25 years ago. I've always regretted not attending one of the Forth conferences they used to have back then and not getting to meet Mr. Moore.
--Th