|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Thing is with .NET you can debug a release build, and even do remote debugging... So it's all a weird claim to me. Definitely someone who only uses Common Lisp and maybe a language with a less impressive debugging background wrote this article. To be fair, I love Lisp, I dont do a lot with it, though I'm mostly a fan of Racket which is the most modern one outside of maybe Clojure. |
| |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, you don't want a lisp debugging window in production. The absence of stack unwinding does enable editing behavior with wrappers. You could have different error handling without changing any code downstream, and I guess an LLM could theoretically change that depending on the bug it's responding to. But I'm not positive the juice is worth the squeeze, and this article was unconvincing. I mean if you want macros and terse code and a bigger ecosystem, wouldn't Clojure make more sense? |
|
|
| ▲ | rmunn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just finished typing up an example as you wrote this. Rather than duplicate it, here's the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49974251 |
| |
|
| ▲ | anonair 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I imagine production backend with LLM connected using debug interface and patching the code continuously on any exception encounter. (not a CL expert here) |
| |
| ▲ | frollogaston 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Erm, sounds niche. Like you can normally do all that minus resuming the program in other languages. If this is a webserver, it should be fine to restart it for an update, it's not like I'm going to catch some user's failed request and patch it before it times out. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
