I'd look for a language that makes it harder for someone to just press a key once or twice and screw up my code and then get me fired over it. But I can't find one nowadays, and it isn't in the interest of MY security- employment-wise or otherwise -that new languages are being developed.
They all want to say to me, "So long, sucker." That's why they invented languages that are so prone and vulnerable to character-hacking and malicious editing.
I don't think you, or anyone else, is in a better position than I am in that respect. I'd like to think that systems programmers were going to work out a language grammar strategically (and get it accepted and widely used) for the purpose of reducing the vulnerability of code to damage. Checksums operating at the file system level aren't good enough, and there are as many hazards to data as there are dangers of encryption being broken. In an age where many people would like their code to be open-source, they're not going to want to use encryption methods to protect it, anyway.
It seems to me that something has to be done about mysterious 'bugs' popping up everywhere in code that people could've sworn was thoroughly debugged. And there has to be some other explanation for it. You can only rely on machine intelligence up to a certain point; and even if your system had a detached process running as a sourcecode lexical analyzer which continuously monitored code and calculated and compared checksums, it would still be possible for that kind of security to be defeated, because NO program is capable of making decisions regarding what your INTENTIONS were when you wrote a piece of code.
The IETF and the W3C are working with both Java and XSLT standards (and DSSSL) which they expect to be a mainstay well on into the future, and which will probably replace some things eventually. That helps with document (and source code) maintance and transfer, but I really don't think they're too concerned about the kind of deliberate, underhanded tampering I'm talking about that gets done by people who are afraid you might still be working long after they're gone if they get caught.
Who knows... With the kind of editor and IDE enhancements they've got today that allow you to inject XML into the code stream of (at least a few) languages, maybe you should be looking at taking SGML and DSSSL very seriously because of the contributions they make to document processing. Automation of system changes, upgrades, and things like that can also be made easier if you have a language which can act as a parser driver to control the updating of files which you'd otherwise have to edit by hand or completely replace.
It's hard to say where systems programmers are going to be at in respect of C, C++, etc.
I wish they'd get rid of the whole works. Really. Those phony braces are the worst excuse for stack management I've ever heard of.
Maybe if you invent a new language you can take care of that. Otherwise, we'll have to depend on XML-type enforcers and checkers to keep underhanded nonsense from happening under our noses.