My point with mentioning "tightly packed" was that if you'd tried to make the C version small, you'd come out with something much tinier than the 1047 bytes I mentioned.

I see he's set himself a very different goal, which is fine but not that interesting to those of us that aren't Python programmers, I guess.

What disappointed me was clicking through from a headline that seemed to indicate it'd be a tiny implementation, when it's in fact rather bloated.