A more conservative approach would say be very cautious about punching holes through a boat's hull. If there is a clear and easy alternative to a thru-hull, prudence would suggest to use the alternative.
We like to ask ourselves "What is the risk-reward (ratio) of any action we take?" In this case, the risk of a hole through the hull is, to the extreme, a sinking (particularly if the boat is left in the water for long periods of time, unattended). Now that risk is slight, but it still exists. OK - the reward? Slightly better definition on the sensor. For us, that's a bingo -- not worth the risk.
We have been using, on our CD-22, an externally mounted sensor on our depth gauge for years. It is mounted on the transom, between our twins. We have had almost no incidence of turbulence interupting our readings -- at higher speeds none. At low speed, with little turbulence in the wake, none. The only time we have had 'problem' with accuracy in reading depth is when we have 'plowed' through mud, one engine up, and inches under the hull -- and, I'm sure, a thru hull transducer would have had problems in those circumstances as well.
So we would suggest, from our conservative mindset toward cruising, that a thru hull is unnecessary and for us, at least, not prudent.
If you decide on a thru hull, we suggest you get a wooden cone, tape it next to the thru-hull, so if it ever 'pops out' you can immediately plug the hole and stop the water flow.