And your point is completely wrong. It makes no sense for a language to by default optimize for the lowest possible binary size of a "hello world"-sized program. Nobody's in the business of shipping "hello world" to binary-size-sensitive customers.

Non-toy programs tend to be big and the size of their code will dwarf whatever static overhead there is, so your argument does not scale.

Even then, binary size is a low priority item for almost all use cases.

But then even if you do care about it, guess what, every low level language, Rust, C, whatever, will let you get close to the lowest size possible if you put in the effort.

So no, on no level does your argument make sense with any of the examples you've given.