SQL has type safety. It's primary purpose is to have typed schemas. I can't imagine why you would say this, other than some pedantic reason. SQL implementations like Postgres will happily throw errors when your types are off.
Testability - you use a general purpose language to execute SQL. Again, I don't know what you mean.
Composability - I suppose, but remember SQL is a language to retrieve data. I reuse fragments everywhere in a general purpose language.
Comments
Ok? Even if that were true — and I’m not entirely sure how you would even prove that — SQL still lacks type safety, testability, and composability.
SQL has type safety. It's primary purpose is to have typed schemas. I can't imagine why you would say this, other than some pedantic reason. SQL implementations like Postgres will happily throw errors when your types are off.
Testability - you use a general purpose language to execute SQL. Again, I don't know what you mean.
Composability - I suppose, but remember SQL is a language to retrieve data. I reuse fragments everywhere in a general purpose language.