No, most of that is generated from the .rl files or just SQL that's common to everything. Also, you'll want to throw in all of Storm and PyREPL if you want a real comparison.
Then again, 4600 lines of anything is tiny. You have a massively skewed view of "Big" and haven't disproven anything by finding 600 lines of cruft in one directory.
I fully agree with you that this is more than tiny for a C project, but it can be big compared to a small script. I also develop/maintain the projects measured in zipped megabytes (where I don't even have a wish to try to wait to count the lines!) I only compared it to some script solution.
You're right, 600 lines more or less are irrelevant. I just thought you're measuring something else as I saw the total of 1000 instead of 4000. Still it is all tiny for a real C program.
I also think that the C solution is more portable than the dependence on any version of Python. I also cross-compiled the code for 32 MB RAM mipsel platforms and I agree that only C dependencies are better than any script language dependencies (not counting shell, when it's carefully written).
But I actively use both Perl and Python so I'd still really like to know what was lacking in Python 2.2 or 2.3 or 2.4, of course only in case you already knew that you were to have any Python on the target computer. But then if you couldn't expect to have any Python, then the fact that distros still use older versions wasn't of much relevance.
Then again, 4600 lines of anything is tiny. You have a massively skewed view of "Big" and haven't disproven anything by finding 600 lines of cruft in one directory.