[patrec]

Ugh o/c sorry, my bad, I should just have done it in slime to start with (esp since I've compared it ipython); was just too lazy:

    The value
      NIL
    is not of type
      (OR (VECTOR CHARACTER) (VECTOR NIL) BASE-STRING PATHNAME
          SYNONYM-STREAM FILE-STREAM)
    
    when binding PATHNAME
       [Condition of type TYPE-ERROR]
    
    Restarts:
     0: [RETRY] Retry SLY mREPL evaluation request.
     1: [*ABORT] Return to SLY's top level.
     2: [ABORT] abort thread (#<THREAD "sly-channel-1-mrepl-remote-1" RUNNING {1004894CD3}>)
    
    Backtrace:
     0: (MERGE-PATHNAMES NIL 69988797066848 MERGE-PATHNAMES) [external]
     1: (SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV (MERGE-PATHNAMES NIL) #<NULL-LEXENV>)
     2: (EVAL (MERGE-PATHNAMES NIL))
     3: ((LAMBDA NIL :IN SLYNK-MREPL::MREPL-EVAL-1))
     --more--

This is nicer than "raw" sbcl but I still have trouble seeing how anyone could prefer looking at common lisp backtraces (with the caveat that I only have used open source lisp implementations; I have no idea what allegro or lispworks are like).

However, as I wrote common lisp is much nicer in some other respects (as you undoubtedly know). For a few other toy examples let's say I do:

    (/ 1 (random 2))

This will cause DIVISION-BY-ZERO 50% of the time. But if that happens one of the possible restarts (also seen above) is just try the same thing again. I can try as many times as necessary to get (/ 1 1). Of course this is a silly example, but realistic cases are not hard to come up: you forgot to copy a file to the right place or the disk is full and you need to make some space before retrying. Or you have a transient network failure etc. Similarly

    (mapcar #'sine '(1 2 3))

The function sine does not exists, but one of the possible restarts allows me to supply something else instead:

    The function COMMON-LISP-USER::SINE is undefined.
       [Condition of type UNDEFINED-FUNCTION]

    Restarts:
     0: [CONTINUE] Retry using SINE.
     1: [USE-VALUE] Use specified function
    [...]

If I press 1 and then provide #'sin I'll get (0.84147096 0.9092974 0.14112). But the more fun thing to do is to just implement the missing function there and then. Whilst the debugger window stays active, I can just write my "sine" function in the editor or repl and then retry, e.g. writing (defun sine (x) (sin x)) will give the same result.

This is pretty cool, because it means you can start writing some topdown code start running it an incrementally fill in the missing functions you are calling bad haven't yet defined without ever losing your state.

[travv0]

One other nicety I'd add that you don't get from the Python stacktrace is the ability to inspect each frame to see the local bindings, and even restart evaluation from a previous frame. I agree that the Python stacktrace looks nicer on a surface level, but I'd argue that in practice SBCL's debugger is more helpful.

[patrec]

> One other nicety I'd add that you don't get from the Python stacktrace is the ability to inspect each frame to see the local bindings

No, you do get that. Even in the plain python interpreter you can do import pdb; pdb.pm() after an error to do post mortem debugging and walk up and down the stackframes and inspect or manipulate local variables. In ipython that happens automatically (if you run with --pdb) or after you type `debug` after an exception. And tooling for production stacktraces normally also captures local variables.

There are a bunch of additional niceties that Common Lisp has, such as turtles-most-of-the-way-down: you might eventually hit a foreign function call you cannot further inspect, but for most Common Lisp implementations almost everything is implemented in lisp. In python you a significant proportion are C extensions which are opaque to the built in debugger, although you can make gdb work. Also remote debugging is much more natural in common lisp.

Generally the stuff that is better about the debugging experience in python is in a way more superficial and the stuff that's nicer in common lisp is much more fundamental, and yet, my experience is different than yours: the superficial stuff that python does well and common lisp does badly or simply less well matters more for overall productivity for most things I tend to do. This is although the debugger related stuff you can't do as well with common lisp amounts more or less to minor friction whereas the stuff you can't do with python is really hard to work around if you need it.

I think this is an object lesson on focussing on the (right) low hanging fruit.