Not sure why you're getting downvotes. The 2 vs 3 has already split part of Python's userbase.

Another change that broke significant amounts of code would just make things even worse.

I'm not sure that's true.

My objection to 3 was it did nothing for me. All I got out of it was work dumped in my lap just so my code would continue running.

Giving us a GIL-less pypy with jvm-scale performance would be worth a lot of hassle.

> My objection to 3 was it did nothing for me...Giving us a GIL-less pypy with jvm-scale performance would be worth a lot of hassle.

worth a lot of hassle to you. I imagine there are people who wouldn't find it worth the hassle. e.g. people who use python as a glue language where it's not close to being near the performance bottleneck - breaking the language to make it 'faster' would do nothing for them.

the people using it for glue code really won't be upgrading their version anytime soon. My team uses python in production and we are still on 2.6

And you'd now have a 3-way split of resources (both learning materials and developers) between 2, 3 and (an imaginary) 4.