If what you are referring to as the standard library is in that 1.5MB, then disregard my comment on LOC.
If it's in that remaining 12MB or so of stuff, then I'm wondering if LOC counts should include what is in there that is required for these programs to run.
Look at it this way. If I download 12MB of code and then I write 500 lines, does that mean I am a master of writing small, compact code?
Sure, if you ignore the 12MB I had to download first.
I'm not singling out Python. Perl, Ruby, etc. are equally large.
The point is you are downloading 1000's of LOC to enable you to write "short" programs.
Nothing wrong with that. But those 12MB that were needed beforehand... should we just ignore all that when we count LOC?
Maybe one has to do embedded work to have an appreciation for memory and storage limitations and thus the sheer size of these scripting libraries.
Yes, we should ignore library code LOC as there's no associated cognitive/maintenance overhead, which is what we are really trying to count. I have happily used (C)Python for a decade without peaking at the source. Same goes for, say, math.h
