DMD producing huge binaries

[Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 20 May 2016 at 19:45:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> Hashing isn't algorithmically cheap, either.

I also don't think compression should be a performance issue. I 
heard that some compression algorithms are as fast as the data 
comes in, so fast enough for our purpose.
The reason I chose hashing is simplicity and a guaranteed small 
symbol size. I wasn't sure whether a 5MB symbol would compress to 
a reasonable size. I wanted symbols to be readable; so less than, 
say, 80 chars.

For people interested in finding out whether mangling changes 
will improve compile speed performance: forget about linking and 
mangling, and just assign symbol names like "a", "b", "c", etc., 
and see what happens.