Do tell what those problems are? Whenever I hear people complain about this, they suffer from some fundamental misunderstanding of how null-safe languages work in practice
You literally tell it to break, a null-safe language will not actually prevent you from shooting your foot, it'll just make sure you do so knowingly. "foo!" is essentially a shortcut for
guard foo else {
fatalError()
}But at least it did explicit (you HAD to add those characters) to get the unsafety than in C is the default.
Is it? I can’t think of any langage but Elm which doesn’t have that assertion. Though I guess e.g. Idris or ATS could have left out as well.
Personally I don't really see that as an issue, we're talking about null safe by default vs not safe by default. It being simple to break the null-safety is a good thing, as long as it requires you to do it deliberately