Erlang and Lisp aren't exactly canonical examples of procedural programming languages.

I don't see it on there, they must have taken it down. That said, Lisp isn't a really a pure functional language either if that is what you are implying (setf). I don't know enough about Erlang to say anything about that. It is odd that they specify "procedural" though. Anyone that knows a programming language probably knows a procedural programming language.

This has been pointed out to them (months ago), but they haven't fixed their posting.

That's really pathetic. Me thinks they're not going to get the best qualified people with that kind of attitude.

No, but they look like procedural programming languages to people who are deep into, for example, Haskell. Maybe loopt wants to present itself as on the forefront of functional programming.

Now they've modified their posting to be redundant:

# Excellent knowledge of C++, C#

# Knowledge of a procedural language

They are implying that C++ and C# are not procedural programming languages. Yes, they're object oriented, but they're still procedural too... C++ and C# sure as hell are not functional languages (e.g. haskell, erlang) nor logic languages (e.g. prolog), nor are they imperative languages without function calls (e.g FORTRAN before 1958, some assembly languages). </pedantic>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming