3 ms·
Could use an example of how this workflow is superior to having a debugger drop in repl like you can do in many languages. For example pry for ruby or debugger
by twobitshifter 4y ago
Could use an example of how this workflow is superior to having a debugger drop in repl like you can do in many languages. For example pry for ruby or debugger in chrome, which allow you to interact with the code in it’s current state. With lisp i think the benefit is you can evaluate as you go and skip debugging all together.
- Olical 4y agoI'm the author, I think both. I'm working on DAP (https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter-protocol/ https://microsoft.github.io/debug-adapter-protocol/) support for Clojure to use alongside Conjure connected to the same running Clojure program. I can get by without a debugger but I think both have their strengths and I want both. Actually I want all three: REPL, LSP, DAP. The REPL layer gets to be super small and simple when LSP and DAP are handling the other harder parts of IDE-ish features. Don't pick one, have your cake and eat it :) future post I'm planning talks about this sort of trifecta and all of my favourite editor things coming together alongside fast auto-running unit tests.