strong disagree, C is a very poor language that does not provide a proper stdlib to reuse, collections/containers/functors. No OOP means no efficient code reuse, zero syntax sugars, manual memory noise, etc etc
C toy programs can be short though.
Disagree all you like. The rust port apparently didn't hear you, because the line count grew by nearly 50%, and I can post other similar comparisons with some other codebases and languages too.
I see about 1k lines of new tests, probably 500-600 lines of build system integration across various files, nearly 1k lines of cargo lock file information for dev dependencies and the Rust code appears to be more highly commented than the C code was.
Sounds to me like you already decided what your conclusion was and are just looking for data to back it up without actually analyzing it.
But this Rust port isn't idiomatic Rust, so it doesn't take much advantage of the improved idiom. Its authors call that out early.
Example: In C you're obliged to write a lot of counter loops, because the language does not have iterators, the idiomatic Rust is both smaller and easier to read because the counters weren't really for anything, they're just implementation details:
for (k=0; k< size(geese); ++k) // We need this k counter in C to index geese
for goose in geese // In Rust we can just have the geese themselves
But if you do a non idiomatic port, you carry across that loop as it was written, plus you gain the extra conversion noise. So this is a much less useful metric.