> He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.

> I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.

My confusion is that I'd expect breaking backwards compatibility to either be completely off the table or for the amount of breakage allowed to be up for debate. If you're not willing to break compatibility at all, I feel like the goal should be to shoot as low as possible without breaking anything; if it's possible to get as low as other languages, why stop there? If you're willing to sacrifice some backwards compatibility, why not be willing to break it a little more to eliminate the last few sources of unsafety?