Why does nobody seem to think that `null` is a serious problem in D?

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Monday, 19 November 2018 at 21:52:47 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

> A null pointer dereference is an immediate error, and it's also 
> a safe error. It does not cause corruption, and it is free (the 
> MMU is doing it for you).

Is this always true for all arches that D can compile to? I 
remember back in the DOS days with no memory protection you 
really could read OS data around the beginning.

> Consistent segfaults are generally easy to figure out.

I think I would still prefer a stack trace like other kinds of D 
errors. Is this too difficult?