Re:Lisp a logical language? (Score 1)

> That's debateable.

Common Lisp is a multi-paradigm language.
It *supports* Functional, Imperative and
Object-Oriented Programming. It does not
*enforce* their usage, but offers a good
substrate for programming in those styles.

Lisp does not offer any built-in support
for Logical Programming - but there are
tons of extensions for doing it.

> LISP has no typing,

Well, that's wrong. Lisp has "typing". Read
the Common Lisp ANSI standard.

> function arity, partial evaluation,

These are easy to do.

> composition,

Sure it has.

> list comprehension,

This is only syntactic sugar.

> or even function predicates
> (not sure if that's the right name, it's
> where it only applies the function if the
> predicate matches).

Again only sugar - trivial to implement.

> Sure you can do all of those in lisp, but you have to do it by hand.

Yes, but it is damn easy and it has been done
a thousand times already.

> I could do the same in python, java, or even C, if I were wont to do such grunt work by hand.

Lisp has functions as first-class values and a
bendable syntax - so this is all trivial in Lisp.

The ANSI CL standard already has 1500 pages -
if the Lisp community standardizes all kinds
of random features that are available, it would
be more in the range of 25000 pages.

Haskell and some other languages are not
"more" "functional languages" compared
to Lisp - but they offer a different view
on Functional Programming (enforcing FP,
statically typed, non-strict, complex syntax,
...). Some of those languages have been
implemented on top of Lisp.

> lisp to me feels like pascal with prefix syntax.

The comparision is flawed:
Pascal even does not *support*
Functional Programming.

Haskell feels to me like a statically typed,
non-strict Lisp. YMMV.