It's an implementation detail.
It's an "implementation detail" that means the difference between "small and fast" and "does it really take this much code to do $trivial_task?", or if you scale up, between "it works" and "we need to buy more hardware", so it bloody well matters.
Your example is useless as no one would ever write code like that in practice anyway. It's usually (needlessly) full of things like higher-order functions, which have much higher overheads. This reminds me of an old quote about Asm vs C, in response to the "you can write inefficient code in any language" argument: "Because of the amount of effort you need to expend to write any code in Asm, you will naturally be encouraged to use as few instructions as possible, resulting in much higher code density." Compare this to C++ where e.g. writing std::map<std::string,std::string> v; and calling several methods on it is enough to instantly generate a KB or more of code, or to take this to an extreme, eval in even higher level languages (like Lisp) is sufficient to add to your executable a substantial portion of the bloody compiler itself!
"With great power comes great responsibility." And I'm not sure if the majority of HLL programmers out there should have that responsibility.