Why I'm Making Python 2.8
&gt; <i>And the majority of Python code written does not run under any of the 3.x interpreters. This makes it harder for its users to be productive.</i><p>What a load of bollocks. For new projects this only matters if libraries aren&#x27;t ported, which they are for the most part. For old projects, either you&#x27;re in a situation where you can spend time porting your code to Python 3, or you don&#x27;t; but as TFA mentioned pep-404, the writing has been officially on the wall ever since 2011 so at that point you have to admit you did choose to incur tech debt and do nothing about it, so the claimed loss of productivity is on you.<p>&gt; <i>Unlike 2.7 code, Python 2.8 wouldn&#x27;t be able to guarantee exact 3.x compatibility, since there are some python scripts that will run under both Python 2.7 and Python 3.x but produce different output, and Python 2.8 chooses the 2.7 behavior in these cases.</i><p>What a terrible, terrible situation. Now you&#x27;ll have &quot;python&quot; code that will neither run on 2.7 nor run compliantly on 3.x. As for the latter, please explain how that will alleviate anything on the following point, since behaviour at runtime will be subtly different:<p>&gt; <i>adding these remaining Python 3 features would greatly simplify running code targeting Python 3, and allow people to use Python 2.8 to run a mix of Python 2 and 3 code.</i><p>I don&#x27;t know what recourse the PSF has but maybe they should even go all in and defend the &quot;Python&quot; name so as to prevent confusion and stop a potential community fracture. Just call it anything else but &quot;Python 2.8&quot; is not Python.