I think we don't miss a conventional debugger in Racket (Emacs or Dr) because, unlike say Python, Racket is not a shallow layer over some unsafe amalgam of C and C++. Sure there is some of it left but our crashes don't leave core dumps because most of them are safe.
I agree that on occasion it would be neat to say "stop here and let me explore/modify the environment and the store." Most of the time though you get away with printf because the language is safe I just don't consider it high priority until someone shows me a really good use case. -- Matthias On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: >> Don't make me want to go back to programming Racket in Emacs :-) >> But thanks for mapping Emacs back into the fold. -- Matthias > > The more I do with racket-mode, the deeper my appreciation for > everything that DrRacket does. It's really quite amazing. > > Also the more I program in Emacs Lisp, the more I appreciate programming > in Racket. :) > > > p.s. The edebug feature in Emacs Lisp is one thing I do now miss in > Racket. IOW I'm tempted to tackle using DrRacket debugger annotations, > with an edebug UI in Emacs. Either per-function like edebug, or per > module(s) like DrR. > > Sure, I hardly ever want a debugger for Racket, in the way I used one > heavily and religiously for C/C++ (to step through new code the first > time instead of just hitting Run). After all we have the REPL, and > functions. And TBH printfs usually suffice. So I hardly every used the > debugger in DrRacket. > > And yet. Sometimes it would be handy to set breakpoints and step through > code. Now that I've done that enough with Elisp for racket-mode, I want > to be able to do it for Racket code, too. > > Aside from utility, there's just the raw challenge of making something > like that work. At least it would be a challenge, for me. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
