> This is irrelevant, as it's extremely difficult to find any two pieces of software that are "functionally the same"
Yes, indeed. You're illustrating is why the post I replied to is a straw man argument. Most software, as you say, is not functionally the same anymore.
> string localization should have no perceptible performance impact
Yes, my argument was that we got localization without a noticeable perf impact. But it does consume memory, bandwidth and code size, and as you correctly point out, a small amount of compute. I would venture to suggest that rendering Asian fonts is a tad more involved than an O(1) hash table lookup. Localization is just one of hundreds of features we have standard now that we didn't have 20 years ago.
Yes, indeed. You're illustrating is why the post I replied to is a straw man argument. Most software, as you say, is not functionally the same anymore.
> string localization should have no perceptible performance impact
Yes, my argument was that we got localization without a noticeable perf impact. But it does consume memory, bandwidth and code size, and as you correctly point out, a small amount of compute. I would venture to suggest that rendering Asian fonts is a tad more involved than an O(1) hash table lookup. Localization is just one of hundreds of features we have standard now that we didn't have 20 years ago.