That is great information, but perhaps it would be even more interesting with a comparison focusing on supported features, standard library support, and so on.
MicroPython [1] is designed for "real" embedding, i.e. in the "embedded development" sense, on microcontrollers and so on and seems quite successful in that niche. Those are often a smaller target than a game running on either a phone/tablet or PC, which would seem to kind of invert things.
The other comparison would be memory and disk/ROM usage.
Also, micropython, in its hundreds of thousands of lines of code, supports quite a number of microcontrollers and boards; I suspect the core language is smaller, or counting lines used for a single build target would drop it considerably.
MicroPython [1] is designed for "real" embedding, i.e. in the "embedded development" sense, on microcontrollers and so on and seems quite successful in that niche. Those are often a smaller target than a game running on either a phone/tablet or PC, which would seem to kind of invert things.
[1]: https://micropython.org/