Re: Weakness of Ada is expensive / security / etc. ? Anything else?

["G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 22.07.15 12:31, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> Ah, you meant table names? I see.
>
> Well, that is not a literal, it is an identifier. Binding does not work for
> them. And you want too much from SQL. SQL is a very low-level language
> where tables are not objects and have no type (to have common operations
> where a table could be a parameter)

... T1 INNER JOIN T2 ...

has infix operator INNER JOIN which requires T1 and T2 to
be of proper type, i.e. tables, or views, or compatible
relations produced via SELECT etc...

They aren't of some named type, but their type is grammatically
implied and needs structural equivalence.

Granted, there are no meta-types for objects from the
universe having objects of table kinds in it; also, one
cannot define JOIN. Not too unusual to not be able to
define language in language, I think.