That's not a good comparison. To get a full picture, you have to compare the X server, all the Xorg drivers, the X client libraries, the X utilities, all the di

That's not a good comparison. To get a full picture, you have to compare the X server, all the Xorg drivers, the X client libraries, the X utilities, all the different X window managers and compositors, all the code from alternate X server implementations, etc. X11 desktops are all using dbus too so that one counts for both. All together added up it's significantly more code than Wayland, and that's even considering that the major Wayland compositors try to share as much as possible between the X and Wayland implementations. That is, Mutter and KWin didn't use wlroots. Wayland and X11 are just pluggable backends for them. Go and look there yourself if you want to make your own direct comparison. The Wayland backends are pretty small and they talk to the kernel directly, whereas the X backends have to go through all of that extra code just to talk a complicated protocol to the X server to accomplish the same task. This is different situation for older non-compositing window managers that still use the old X11 drawing primitives. Compositors do all their drawing themselves using direct rendering to the GPU so are able to just swap out the backend without much trouble. That shift was happening in X11 in the years prior to Wayland and it's one of the reasons Wayland is even able to work.