Most Joy people are also k people, and Joy appears to be the only one similar, although still very large.
The C++ program is lost to link rot now, but by the author's own admission, was substantially larger than even the substantially large examples within that page.
Keep in mind that by their own admission, everyone in the c2 thread's code was hard to read (outside of the Joy program), and many were buggy. Meanwhile, the k program is quite simple to read.
You should probably label your columns, but that seems to be wc output.
The Scheme and Haskell versions are actually shorter than you imply since they include the pairings in the count (when the pairings in the code are examples). Additionally, the k version is one line longer than you suggest. The definition of a is on its own line is used in the solution. Still only 2 lines, but if you want to persuade you should probably have correct numbers.
Fair crit! Running off of few hours of sleep last night (spent way too long defending k in this thread; need to set sensible noprocrast settings or get some flavor of self-control); accuracy is impaired. Another error I see in retrospect is that I included comments in a few of them but not all of them.
So maybe 40x in line count if you compare an extremely verbose language like Java to K in this contrived example? That's not close to 100x and especially not close to 1000x.
