Top programmers write mission-critical code at NASA to make such code clearer, safer, and easier to understand. NASA\u2019s\u00a0Jet Propulsion Laboratory has laid 10 rules for developing software. Even though it\u2019s difficult to prove a consensus over a good coding standard, NASA\u2019s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) follows a set of guidelines of codenamed \u201cThe Power of Ten\u2013Rules for Developing Safety Critical Code\u201d. Lately they extended there rules to 30 but the basic and most important rules are still 10. the PDF file contains the rules which are in-depth and more thoroughly explained which anyone can go through and its a treat reading those for programmers. NASA is very strict about these rules and does not let any programmer go astray as they say The rules act like the seat-belt in your car: initially they are perhaps a little uncomfortable, but after a while their use becomes second-nature and not using them becomes unimaginable. 10 Rules for Developing Safety Critical Code The power of ten can always be incorporated in any code no matter how small the code is , as these are the best coding standards which can not be found anywhere else. \tRestrict all code to very simple control flow constructs \u2013 do not use goto statements, setjmp or longjmp\u00a0constructs, and direct or indirect recursion. \tAll loops must have a fixed upper-bound. It must be trivially possible for a checking tool to prove statically that a preset upper-bound on the number of iterations of a loop cannot be exceeded. If the loop-bound cannot be proven statically, the rule is considered violated. \tDo not use dynamic memory allocation after initialization. \tNo function should be longer than what can be printed on a single sheet of paper in a standard reference format with one line per statement and one line per declaration. Typically, this means no more than about 60 lines of code per function. \tThe assertion density of the code should average to a minimum of two assertions per function. Assertions are used to check for anomalous conditions that should never happen in real-life executions. Assertions must always be side-effect free and should be defined as Boolean tests. When an assertion fails, an explicit recovery action must be taken, e.g., by returning an error condition to the caller of the function that executes the failing assertion. Any assertion for which a static checking tool can prove that it can never fail or never hold violates this rule (I.e., it is not possible to satisfy the rule by adding unhelpful \u201cassert(true)\u201d statements). \tData objects must be declared at the smallest possible level of scope. \tThe return value of non-void functions must be checked by each calling function, and the validity of parameters must be checked inside each function. \tThe use of the preprocessor must be limited to the inclusion of header files and simple macro definitions. Token pasting, variable argument lists (ellipses), and recursive macro calls are not allowed. All macros must expand into complete syntactic units. The use of conditional compilation directives is often also dubious, but cannot always be avoided. This means that there should rarely be justification for more than one or two conditional compilation directives even in large software development efforts, beyond the standard boilerplate that avoids multiple inclusion of the same header file. Each such use should be flagged by a tool-based checker and justified in the code. \tThe use of pointers should be restricted. Specifically, no more than one level of dereferencing is allowed. Pointer dereference operations may not be hidden in macro definitions or inside typedef declarations. Function pointers are not permitted. \tAll code must be compiled, from the first day of development, with all compiler warnings enabled at the compiler\u2019s most pedantic setting. All code must compile with these setting without any warnings. All code must be checked daily with at least one, but preferably more than one, state-of-the-art static source code analyzer and should pass the analyses with zero warnings.