D website pointing to 2.0, not 1.0

[jcc7]

== Quote from Anders_F_Björklund (afb at algonet.se)'s article
> Alexander Panek wrote:
> > Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/
> > directly to the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say
> > stupid, marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being
> > unstable and hard to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally
> > stable and great already!
> >
> > I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
> > somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the
> > stable branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users
> > actually, no?

I absolutely agree. The D 1.0 spec is more stable, more tested, etc. D 2.0 is a
rough draft. The stable version should be more prominent. It should take extra
links to get to the current draft of D 2.0.

Also, I'm suspicious of the need for 2 versions for some pages, such as "D links"
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dlinks.html).

(By the way, there are some suggestions for D links on the DocComments wiki page
that might be nice to apply to that page. Are bug reports the way to get those
things improved these days?)


> Also, site http://www.d-programming-language.org/ seems out of date
> ?
>
> Although it is not as bad as http://www.opend.org/ - it still gives
> a strange impression when looking for information on the D language.
>
> --anders


The "vendor-neutral" http://www.d-programming-language.org/ page isn't as
out-of-date as opend.org, but I did notice that the Gnu D link (should probably
say "GDC") should be: http://dgcc.sourceforge.net/

I don't know who is "in charge" of opend.org, but it's a pity that they can't at
least add a message to the home page to indicate that the website isn't been
maintained and the projects hosted there aren't being developed (at least at
opend.org) anymore.