Compilation strategy

[Walter Bright]

On 12/16/2012 10:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> If the entire .d file is there in binary form, then I don't see why it wouldn't
> work. .di files fail because they strip out the implementation. If a binary
> format were used,

It's all about what is in the file, not whether it is text or binary.

> then we should be able to get away with keeping the
> implementation there, because then it's obfuscated rather than for sitting
> there for all to see, which is why corporations and the like insist on
> distributing only headers. Even with an object file, the best that you get is
> obfuscation, because it can always be reverse engineered, so it seems to me
> that what needs to be avoided is providing text. As long as we use text, we're
> forced to cut out the implementation and end up crippling any code that uses
> that module, since it can't inline it or use it in CTFE. In binary format,
> it's obfuscated, so the entire implementation can be there, allowing inlining
> and CTFE to work.

This method of obfuscation simply will not hide things from someone with even 
modest technical ability, because *all* the source information is *necessarily* 
there in the file.

Object files are resistant to reverse engineering because most of the 
information is gone.