Consider removing ERC165Storage

[frangio]

Does it ever make sense to use this contract over ERC165 with overrides and if statements?

The API is a little simpler because it's just a call to _registerInterface. The use of storage makes it more expensive to execute supportsInterface, and also to deploy the contract. Deployment costs are not necessarily worse though, because when storage is not used it requires more bytecode, but probably not enough to match it.

[frangio]

I'm curious how many occurences we can find of ERC165Storage in the Smart Contract Sanctuary. Should give us an idea if people are using this.

[Amxx]

Its difficult to count them, as ERC165Storage is mentionned in ERC165 ...

looking "ERC165Storage," returns a lot of result (+500)

[JulissaDantes]

Looking at the total amount of contracts using the ERC165 contract against the amount using the ERC165Storage inside the sanctuary with the following search criteria and results:

Search criteria	Contract	Results Count
repo:tintinweb/smart-contract-sanctuary file:/mainnet/ content:"contract ERC165" count:all	ERC165	121.4k
repo:tintinweb/smart-contract-sanctuary file:/mainnet/ content:"contract ERC165Storage" count:all	ERC165Storage	944

We concluded that it can be removed since only ~0.8% of contracts using ERC165 used storage to register the interfaces.

[JulissaDantes]

Implemented by #3880 .