Which Coding Languages are Safest?

There are numerous performance benefits offered in programming languages that deliver safer operations for users. Before you start writing code, ensure that the language you select provides all possible advantages for optimum functional safety.

Safety in coding language really amounts to how soon the language identifies programming errors. It’s a simple equation to calculate the degree of safety in the language you’re writing in: the faster the error identification, the safer the programming language. Detailed examination of the particulars of a language’s error identification capacity reveals that the safest programming languages provide for the broadest scope error identifications and capture the largest number of function timeframes.


Some examples of high safety performance by programming languages are in their capacities to identify and capture errors like misspelled function names during run time, and capturing errors like null pointer exceptions during run time. When utilizing an IDE with capability for method completion, errors can also be captured during typing time. Array index out of bounds exception, typing errors, misspelled named parameter, wrong number of parameters, are errors also identified by programming languages during a larger number of process times, and that can be considered safer for code-writers due to this increased error capturing performance.  If you have an online electrical engineering degree, you might be able to point out a few other tips.

Errors can also be caught during unit testing. And, during Q&A testing, errors can be identified without waiting for the process of production in order to capture errors.

Let’s examine just a couple of examples of how a programming language identifies and captures errors during the various process times, and factor the comparative error identification performance of available languages to determine which is actually safest.

Array index out of bounds exception

Safer: Python, C#, Smalltalk and Java all capture this error during run time when array-indexing is attempted.

Less safe: Ruby and JavaScript do not capture this error. If an attempt is made to index array using an out of bounds index, these two only return null. C and C++ also do not identify this error, and are not reliable to consistently perform a core dump to remedy it.

Null pointer exceptions

Safer: When you attempt to dereference the pointer during run time, Python, Ruby, Java, Smalltalk, C#, LISP, and JavaScript can all capture these errors.

Less safe: C, C++ language does capture, but does not identify, this kind of error, it only performs a core dump, instead of specifically identifying the error. Ocaml and Haskell both locate this error during compilation time. This is due to the fact that null values only occur when defined specifically in the entered type, and when the compiler then requires dealing with the null in case statement.

Coding languages that include the feature to name parameters add value to their error management capacity by permitting users to clearly identify and understand the types of errors being captured, compared to languages that only perform core dumping without such clarification of the error.

Additionally, a variety of side effects as well as throwing exceptions are issues in some less safe languages.

This brief analysis, of course, does not include all possible errors, however, by these comparisons, you can see that each of the various programming languages can be safer in terms of its performance in capturing some errors during preferred times, and less safe in other functions. Some languages cannot be included in comparisons of some types of errors because the function for naming parameters is not a feature of the programming language. Overall, based on our comparisons here, Haskell and Ocaml and Java appear to perform more safely, while LISP, Python, Smalltalk, C and C++ capture a notably lower number of error types during preferred times. Ruby and JavaScript are even lower safety performers.