I'm not quite sure I understand your point, but you're disagreeing with the above quote whereas I agree wholeheartedly with the quote.

Compare a language which forces you to write this

    ll = []
    for x in xx:
      if bar(x):
        ll.append(x)

This is Python, but imagine you're doing this in Java or C++ instead. Every time you read a for loop, you have to re-derive what the author intended. Are they just iterating? Are they composing a new list? Remember, these loops are often more than just two lines and they are common.

Contrast the above with

    ll = [x for x in xx if bar(x)]

Or even (in Haskell)

    filter bar xx

When your language gives you primitives to talk at a higher level, you can write more crisply and concisely. The simple, trivial code you've written 1e9 times is replaced by a very clear, simple definition of what you're doing. The important code, the interesting code may now speak for itself.