When you make a statement like: "travelling salesman in 4 lines of code", it generally means the entire problem in 4 lines of code, not a function call to some built in function and a couple of array initializers.
Where does the line get drawn? Hell, an echo statement must look up the character code for each letter in the string and send that along to the graphics driver for further processing before even one letter is shown on the screen to the user.
The article demonstrated the language itself being able to present a solution to the traveling salesman in 2 lines of code. I personally find arguments about how many underlying function calls the language had to go to while it turned it's instructions into something the computer can understand to be useless asinine pendantry. It doesn't matter to the end user working in this language what goes on any more than it really matters to a video game programmer what exactly goes on in the GPU when a graphics call is made, or to a windows programmer exactly what the GUI must do to place the letters on the screen.
For example: people use PHP often because it can do in a couple lines what might take several pages of code to do in Java - and there are tasks that PHP needs several pages of code to do that Python can deal with in a few lines as well. That's the nature of programming languages. This is another tool to put in the tool case, and that's a good thing. I will admit that the article tries to write this up as a universal panacea, but I have my severe doubts on that. There's likely going to be certain tasks to which this language will prove to be poorly suited and need very long scripts to do that current languages can do fairly quickly.