Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?


Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article <cK-dnaMW4cN4sQjYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Thomas Gagne <tgagne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't see where you disagreed since that's exactly what I said
before. The check transaction credits cash then debits interest and
principle (I think I got that right).

What, did you think double entry was the only way to get a system that
balances? If you really don't see the difference it just shows you
still need to think harder. As I said, the method of encapsulation
differs. To maintain a record of balance, your way requires you move
the transactions around the entire system. By using other objects we
can set up boundaries that allow separation of concerns.

"Separation of concerns" is an often-misused yellow-alert buzz-term.
How about some scenarios where your suggestion goes right and
normalized ones go badly or are costly to maintain. (The other side may
also counter with their own scenarios.)


--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

-T-

.