[article] Language Design Deal Breakers

[Rob T]

I really don't understand the reasoning for not removing as many 
known sources of bugs as is reasonably possible *provided* that 
doing so makes the situation incrementally better (rather than 
worse or to no effect).

So will introducing non-nullable references make things worse or 
have no practical effect?

There's also more to the equation than only reducing a potential 
source of bugs, as it also eliminates the manual null checks that 
programmers inevitably place in their code. More code always 
means introducing more bugs, along with higher development and 
maintenance costs.

I also know that allowing null references has a use (I use them), 
but as was discussed before, we can have both options. 
Non-nullable references look like a win-win to me.

--rt