I'm parsing your comment to mean, "it's easier to write correct code in compiled languages", but this is not obvious to me, or anyone who's, for instance, written any C at all.
* Ahead of time compiled languages reduce flexibility but allow the compiler to do more reasoning about the system.
* Statically typed languages allow the compiler to reason about the assignments you make and methods you call. If the language is also AOT compiled, you avoid crashing at runtime.
* Dynamically typed languages significantly reduce boilerplate and avoid the mental effort of expressing an idea in a rigorously typed manner. It's the "hold my beer" approach.
There's a usual confusion of banking in this case, but if we're talking about popular dynamic/memory-managed languages, you can put an equivalent of:
try:
actual code
except:
log.exception
On the other hand, most static-typed systems handle failures explicitly.
I think C is a bad example here. We've come a long way since C. We know how to do better.
Unless you want to include the ecosystem as well. C + valgrind + PVS + clang-analyser do make it easier to create correct code.