I'm not a fan of wordiness for the sake of being wordy. If you think the code is terse just to show off you are missing the point. There's a difference between writing obscure code and writing concise idiomatic code -- see "The Elements of Programming Style" by Kernighan and Plauger. I'd rather Kernighan, Ritchie, Thompson, Pike, et al. write my production code than someone who thinks C pointer idioms are a punishable offense.
"That sort of thing" has been in production in the C libraries, the UNIX kernel, and all of the brilliant utilities that make up UNIX for over 30 years. It's also very much in production code at Google.
I've read both of those links in the past, thanks. And while, yes, "idiomatic" (read: terse and annoying) code is in use in all those areas, I don't have to see it.
Code should be pleasant to read wherever possible. That simply is not, to my mind, pleasant to read. It's one step away from Perl line noise (which I avoid, too). You may disagree with this, and that's fine--different strokes for different folks. I have no interest in seeing it in code I have to maintain; you might, and that's OK by me.
(To be fair, however, I have little interest in working with or, god forbid, maintaining C or C++ code under any circumstances. They press the buttons of a group of developers to which I don't belong.)
"That sort of thing" has been in production in the C libraries, the UNIX kernel, and all of the brilliant utilities that make up UNIX for over 30 years. It's also very much in production code at Google.
You might want to read Paul Graham's thoughts on succinct code at http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html and Rob Pike's "Notes On Programming in C" at http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/pikestyle.