I agree with pretty much everything in the article. However, I would give Java a lower score because no one uses java.lang.Optional in practice, and there is to

I agree with pretty much everything in the article. However, I would give Java a lower score because no one uses java.lang.Optional in practice, and there is too much legacy libraries and application code that cannot or will not be changed. Also, the @NotNull annotation isn't in Java SE; it is made available through various third-party libraries. A language with a null value can dramatically simplify things for a language designer, though. In the case of Java, we know that every array of objects is initialized to null references. Thereafter, we can construct and assign objects to each slot of the array. Otherwise we run into issues that C++ faces - when we construct the array, the field of every object is uninitialized, so they are potentially dangerous if read or destructed, and need the special syntax of placement new to be initialized. The trick to avoiding null here is to avoid pre-allocating an array, and instead to grow a vector one element at a time. The C++ std::vector<E> is very accessible and performant, whereas Java java.util.List<E> is very clunky to use compared to native arrays. Another case that gets simplified is object construction. When the memory for an object has been allocated but before the user's constructor code has run, what values should the fields have, assuming that they are observable? In a Java constructor, all fields are initially set to null/0, then you simply assign values to fields in the body code of the constructor. In C++ constructors however, you should initialize fields in the initializer list, and then you have still have the option to initialize fields in the body. I still think pervasive null values are bad for the programmer (rather than the language designer). Now that I have preliminary experience in Rust, I see that its design is much safer and still practical, so I think this language shows the way forward.