Papers › Smart Contract Languages: a comparative analysis
Smart Contract Languages: a comparative analysis
Massimo Bartoletti, Lorenzo Benetollo, Michele Bugliesi, Silvia Crafa, Giacomo Dal Sasso, Roberto Pettinau, Andrea Pinna, Mattia Piras, Sabina Rossi, Stefano Salis, Alvise Spanò, Viacheslav Tkachenko, Roberto Tonelli, Roberto Zunino
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Smart contracts have played a pivotal role in the evolution of blockchains and Decentralized Applications (DApps). As DApps continue to gain widespread adoption, multiple smart contract languages have been and are being made available to developers, each with its distinctive features, strengths, and weaknesses. In this paper, we examine the smart contract languages used in major blockchain platforms, with the goal of providing a comprehensive assessment of their main properties. Our analysis targets the programming languages rather than the underlying architecture: as a result, while we do consider the interplay between language design and blockchain model, our main focus remains on language-specific features such as usability, programming style, safety and security. To conduct our assessment, we propose an original benchmark which encompasses a wide, yet manageable, spectrum of key use cases that cut across all the smart contract languages under examination.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections