> 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.

When Python 3 was released, it offered Python users a trade: In exchange for a productivity loss (porting your Python 2 code), you'd get a productivity gain (new features in Python 3 and removed cruft). Some projects and companies thought this was a good trade, and have upgraded over the years, and many have not, and haven't. The interpreter I've been working on tries to improve on the terms of that deal for people who have not switched to Python 3.

> What a terrible, terrible situation. Now you'll have "python" code that will neither run on 2.7 nor run compliantly on 3.x.

That's the point, yes. Obviously any interpreter that's backwards compatible with 2.7 but includes new features from 3.x is going to let people write code that doesn't run under 2.7 or 3.x. But what does it matter if your code doesn't run under interpreters that you aren't using and don't intend to use?

> Just call it anything else

I'll change the name.