DMD producing huge binaries

[cym13 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 20 May 2016 at 20:49:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2016 at 19:41:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 6:24 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I don't see a need for hashing something. Would a 
>>> randomly-generated string
>>> suffice?
>>
>> Hashing produces reproducible unique values. Random will not 
>> be reproducible and may not even be unique.
>
> The question is: is it actually good for them to be 
> reproducible? The very idea behind voldemort types is that you 
> don't reference them directly in any way, it is just 
> implementation detail. To me it does make sense to apply it to 
> debugging too (debugging of deeply chained template types isn't 
> really very usable anyway).

It would make binary comparison of libraries and executables 
difficult which troubles me as comparing hashes is a basics of 
binary distribution security : you can check that a precompiled 
binary is legit by recompiling it in the same conditions and 
comparing the two. It would be way harder if random components 
were added.