Re:Scripting in Common Lisp
by TeMPOraL on Friday February 01, 2019 @04:02AM
(#19052685)
Yup.
Common Lisp stack traces tend to be no better, anyway, at least with SBCL and CCL. Up to 90% of a trace you see in the inspector can be compiler/runtime infrastructure. Given that macros don't show up, only their expansions, the backtrace can be full of stuff like SB-KERNEL:%FUNCTION-THAT-I-DONT-RECOGNIZE-BUT-MACROEXPANDED-FROM-SOMETHING-I-KNOW.
Like in Java, most of the time the top few lines are the ones related to your code, but just like in Java, there are exceptions, in which the source of the problem ends up in the middle of the backtrace, surrounded by infrastructure frames.
Common Lisp stack traces tend to be no better, anyway, at least with SBCL and CCL. Up to 90% of a trace you see in the inspector can be compiler/runtime infrastructure. Given that macros don't show up, only their expansions, the backtrace can be full of stuff like SB-KERNEL:%FUNCTION-THAT-I-DONT-RECOGNIZE-BUT-MACROEXPANDED-FROM-SOMETHING-I-KNOW.
Like in Java, most of the time the top few lines are the ones related to your code, but just like in Java, there are exceptions, in which the source of the problem ends up in the middle of the backtrace, surrounded by infrastructure frames.