This is why the U.S. dominates the software world. Back when everyone was figuring out how to express their languages, we had the option to punt on complexity and just use ASCII.
Lots of people speak languages that trivially fit in 8 bits with no real "figuring out" to do. Before Unicode, we all had our different codepages or encodings. Including the U.S.
The U.S. is pretty central to computing. Because of that, and because ASCII only uses 7 bits, some other 8-bit cultures use it as a subset for their native 8-bit encodings. Even in the U.S, we use extensions to ASCII so we can represent text in languages that are close cousins to English. I doubt you actually use ASCII much. You've probably been using either ISO 8859-1 (aka Latin-1), which is a superset of ASCII, or Windows-1252, which is a superset of Latin-1.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc194884.aspx
This mess of incompatible codepages and culture specific encodings is one of the main problems that Unicode was invented to solve. It also happens to help languages which need more than 8 bits.
Of course this isn't to say English is simple overall. Just that it's complexities lie elsewhere, and it's simplicities lie in an area that made it particularly simple for early computer systems to process.
I don't see your point here, with respect to English orthography making computer implementation easier. How exactly does not needing representations for accented characters make anything easier?
Not that I'm claiming English is unique here, just convenient, and many languages can't claim that.
It's not really worth mentioning the alphabet when talking about unique features of English.
If Turkey was the dominant country in IT, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing only for their own alphabet; include all the characters of their alphabet (latin alphabet plus a few more), plus some more common characters used in math etc.