I appreciate the reply. I don't understand what context you believe I was missing? The analogy is incredibly confusing to me too, because humans are more than t

I appreciate the reply. I don't understand what context you believe I was missing? The analogy is incredibly confusing to me too, because humans are more than their DNA: you obviously can't hardlink humans, nor could you replace them with stubs that call some "common" humans, it's not like the obstacle to doing these goes away even with 100% equal DNA vs. 99%. But with computer code, you very much can (for example) easily replace all the executables with a combined one that gets hardlinked with different names, such that they behave differently depending on argv[0]. They don't even need to be 100% identical for us to be able to do this; it works just as well with 1% identical code—you just end up with bigger combined binaries. This is the Busybox approach (notice it combines executables that have hardly anything in common), and it's in fact exactly what Clang already sometimes does (like on MSYS2); one would think they could take the same approach here. This is also precisely the context of the comment I replied to was saying, right? This is the context I was replying to. It's so confusing to me that you claim I'm missing context when I was in fact addressing the context I saw directly—and it was the other comments that were not.