> The inspector is menu driven, and you can always see the available options by typing "?." For the most part, the options are self-explanatory.
I've enjoyed using Chez Scheme a lot, but I never could get my head around its built-in debugger. I never remember where to go to just view a stack trace, and if I do find it, I end up confused when I try to navigate around it.
I suspect all the information I could possibly want is in there, but I don't find the interface at all intuitive.
HexDecOctBin•4mo ago
Lisp tooling is the weirdest of all. On one hand, it allows full introspection and reflection on all internal state. On the other hand, it is almost as clunky as GDB command line. Why is there no visual debugger?
Sometimes I think Emacs was the worst thing to happen to Lisp. It put the language in a "Worse-is-better" box and left it there.
pjmlp•4mo ago
On the contrary, the problem is that people are stuck in the UNIX open source survivors of the Lisp world.
What you want is Lisp Works, Allegro Common Lisp, or Clozure (on macOS).
Or Racket, when on Scheme.
CyberDildonics•4mo ago
It has only been 70 years, I'm sure it's on its way soon.
dexterlagan•4mo ago
Racket has a very nice built-in debugger in its DrRacket editor, with thread visuals and all. Too bad nobody uses DrRacket, or Racket anymore. Admittedly, even with the best debugger, finding the cause of runtime errors has always been a pain. Hence everybody's moving towards statically compiled, strongly typed languages.
widdershins•4mo ago
I've enjoyed using Chez Scheme a lot, but I never could get my head around its built-in debugger. I never remember where to go to just view a stack trace, and if I do find it, I end up confused when I try to navigate around it.
I suspect all the information I could possibly want is in there, but I don't find the interface at all intuitive.