Stack traces are not standardized in Common Lisp, so this is a non-sensical statement. At worst you could say that Python's stack traces are better than some particular CL implementation, but not CL in general.
And almost certainly, if you don't like the way your CL presents stack traces, you can easily change it.
> Stack traces are not standardized in Common Lisp, so this is a non-sensical statement.
Yes, someone could have secretly implemented a common lisp implementation that has the most ergonomic stacktraces in the whole wide world or, equally, a posix shell that runs numerical code a gazillion times faster than the equivalent C compiled with gcc -O3 -mnative -ffast-math because after all the relevant standards do not explicitly forbid it!
I'm not quite sure why lispers in particular are so in love with this argument.
There is nothing nonsensical in saying that shell is a truly terrible language to write high performance numerical code in, even if that is not true by some sort of logical necessity.
In practice most languages have a dominant implementation (even those with ISO standards) and a range of capabilities that existing (and likely future) implementations fall within. Both are far more important than what standards say (try compiling code with djb's standard conformant usage of errno some time).
Stack traces are not standardized in Common Lisp, so this is a non-sensical statement. At worst you could say that Python's stack traces are better than some particular CL implementation, but not CL in general.
And almost certainly, if you don't like the way your CL presents stack traces, you can easily change it.