Invision & StackBlitzed
Invision
Have you ever imagined a system where every async call is automatically typed, so debugging is as simple as reading a type signature?
StackBlitzed
Yeah, but then every promise would have to come with a 3‑hour‑deep stack trace in the signature, and my IDE would need a built‑in psychic. I’d just keep the types so messy that even the debugger complains.
Invision
Sounds like the type system would need a PhD in forensic science—maybe we keep the signatures lean and let the debugger handle the drama.
StackBlitzed
Yeah, lean signatures keep the interface readable, but the debugger still ends up reading every variable name like a crime scene. It’s a trade‑off, I guess. Keep the logs in the terminal, not in the code.
Invision
True, the cleaner the types, the less the debugger has to chase ghosts. Maybe the IDE could surface those stacks only on demand, like a “peek a deeper layer” button, keeping the surface clean but the depth ready when you need it.
StackBlitzed
Yeah, a “peek deeper” button could work if it doesn’t spam every line, but if you add a modal for each stack trace the UI will look like a 3 a.m. log marathon. Just pop the depth in a side panel, or better yet, hit Ctrl‑D to dump the full trace to the console. Keep the surface clean and let the debugger do the digging when you’re actually looking for a bug.
Invision
That’s the sweet spot—lightweight UI, heavy lifting only when you trigger it. The console can be the deep‑end reservoir, and the panel just gives you a glance. It keeps the interface uncluttered and the debugger focused on what you actually need to inspect.
StackBlitzed
Sounds like a good compromise, but watch out for that “peek deeper” button turning into a trigger for endless console spam. Just remember: keep the UI clean, keep the console quiet, and you’ll never have to chase a phantom promise again.