Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:20:21 -0600
In article <t_6dnfQgL7Km-wvYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Thomas Gagne <tgagne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doc O'Leary wrote:
After re-reading your post I'm curious: how is each transaction itself
check payment 100
payment interest 98
payment principle 2
balanced? Let's start with the first one, a $100 check. We know where
it came from but not where it went.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Like I said in my other reply, it
comes down to a question of whether or not the entire system *needs* to
know where the money comes from and if it *needs* a transaction to do
that. I say no. Given that this is comp.object, it really shouldn't be
so hard to understand that we can create objects in a system other than
accounts and transactions. What I refer to as "payment" (and others)
above should be understood to be objects and not just some generic
account. It represents a scenario like "John Doe sent us a $100 check
to be used as a credit card payment. We applied $98 of the payment to
his interest and $2 to his principle." Sure, you can lump that all into
one big transaction and capture the essence of the accounting, but the
business itself usually has a *large* number of uses for the underlying
objects beyond accounting (e.g., late payment results in late fee).
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
.
- References:
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Doc O'Leary
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Doc O'Leary
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Prev by Date: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Previous by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Next by thread: use case <<include>> vs. <<generalize>>
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|