Sorting, as one of the basic algorithms, has a wide range of applications in software development. As the amount of processed data grows, the need for fast and efficient data sorting increases significantly. There are many sorting algorithms and their extensions. However, choosing the best and most versatile among them is impossible. All these algorithms have their specifics, which determine the scope of their effective use. Therefore, the problem of deciding the optimal algorithm for certain specific conditions is relevant. This choice is often a non-trivial task, and an unsuccessful choice of algorithm can cause difficulties with data processing performance. To determine which algorithm will be the best in a particular situation, you need to analyse all the factors that affect the operation of algorithms: the size and structure of the data set, the range of element values, the form of access (random or sequential), the orderliness, the amount of additional memory required to execute the algorithm, etc. In addition, different algorithms have different performance in different programming languages. The study analyses the advantages and disadvantages of nine popular sorting algorithms (Bubble, Insertion, Selection, Shell, Merge, Quick, Counting, Radix, and Heap) due to their specifics and limitations on their possible use. The performance of these algorithms implemented in four popular programming languages (C++, C#, Java and JavaScript) is tested. We experimentally discovered that the performance of sorting algorithms differs depending on the programming language. The applied aspect of the study is that its conclusions and results will allow developers to choose the best algorithm for a particular programming language, depending on the size, range, structure, etc. of the data set to be sorted. Considering this is significant when we have to sort large amounts of data in search engines, scientific and engineering applications. After all, the sorting algorithm's efficiency significantly affects the system's overall performance.