D1 to be discontinued on December 31, 2012

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/15/11 11:44 AM, Mattbeui wrote:
> I am C programmer, but I had already did a little OO programming in
> Python and Delphi. So after look for a growth in my studies and enter
> definetly in OO programming, I found a video on youtube from Andrei
> Alexandrescu. And I got hooked since then.
>
> But that was just the beginning, until I discover that there are D1 and
> D2, tango and phobos Et cetera. Many options to get lost.
>
> I've had a great help from the d-guys at #d channel on IRC. But
> anyway... I think choosing one language is the right choice for
> everyone, mainly for the new users. And you need simplify the entry of
> the new users.
>
> In some cases you need sacrifice something. For example, I love work on
> Visual Studio 7.0 (The old one without framework or ..net), but they
> (irc guys) told me that I need move on to the free version of VS 2010 to
> use VisualD. Yes for me as new member this is a small sacrifice, but for
> you, the D1 guys, you should think for the benefits of D2 for all
> community, and not for what you will lost but what you will get from now
> on.
>
> PS: Sorry my bad english.
>
> Matt.

I quote all this post because I so strongly agree with it.

Lately Walter and I have been increasingly thinking about the steps we 
need to take to improve adoption of D. Things have improved dramatically 
on the technical front, and we think going forward implementation 
quality and library coverage must remain the most important focus points.

However, without a comprehensive PR strategy we risk at being all 
dressed up and nowhere to go. It's particularly important to work on it 
now, not later, because such things take months and years to catch on.

The reason for the recent move, which Matt pointed very well, has to do 
with brand specialization. Years ago I've read a book recommended by a 
successful entrepreneur: "The 22 immutable laws of branding". By utter 
coincidence Walter mentioned he's reading it right now (which gives a 
good insight into our preoccupation).

That book has quite a few interesting and somewhat non-intuitive notions 
(see e.g. a slide deck at 
http://www.slideshare.net/sjhus/22-immutable-laws-of-branding). Among 
these was "the law of contraction", the idea that a brand gets stronger 
as you narrow its focus. The book gives good examples: Starbucks 
specializing on coffee when one could find coffee virtually on every 
block in Seattle; FedEx competing with subsidized postal office but 
specializing in overnight delivery; Colgate winning the "toothpaste war" 
of the 70s with fewer, not more, offerings than Procter & Gamble; and more.

We need to contract D's brand. People who consider D need to contemplate 
one crisp and coherent offer.


Andrei