3 ms·

Is double-entry still needed? I feel that it muddles storage logic with business logic. If it's an error-detecting raid1 storage system, can't we just use raid

Is double-entry still needed? I feel that it muddles storage logic with business logic. If it's an error-detecting raid1 storage system, can't we just use raid1 storage configurations separately from the application?

JC5 4y ago
Technically speaking, it's not really necessary. It does help to validate database consistency, because the sum of all transactions is zero. It also prevents you (from an architectural perspective) to pull money out of thin air. If you create an account with 1000 on it from the start, there has to be a source for that money. That account is hidden and invisible, but will have a balance of -1000. It may look like nothing, but it helps to keep things in check.
RedShift1 4y ago
I learned both single and double entry bookkeeping and double entry just makes much more sense.
- nybble41 4y ago
  In practice most computer-based accounting packages only simulate the appearance of a double-entry bookkeeping system. In traditional double-entry bookkeeping one must manually enter the data for each transaction into multiple journals: a minimum of twice, or more than twice for split transactions. This is what allows the journals to be cross-checked for consistency. The reports produced by computer-based "double-entry" systems will always be consistent, however, because they're really just different views of the same set of multi-account transactions recorded in a general ledger rather than distinct single-sided transactions recorded in account-specific journals. "General-ledger accounting" (for lack of a better term) is superior in terms of having a single source of truth, but not very practical for manual accounting since all the transactions are mixed together. The introduction of computers changed all that by making it easy to generate targeted reports from the general ledger.

3 ms·

Is double-entry still needed? I feel that it muddles storage logic with business logic. If it's an error-detecting raid1 storage system, can't we just use raid

by henrydark 4y ago

JC5 4y ago
Technically speaking, it's not really necessary. It does help to validate database consistency, because the sum of all transactions is zero. It also prevents you (from an architectural perspective) to pull money out of thin air. If you create an account with 1000 on it from the start, there has to be a source for that money. That account is hidden and invisible, but will have a balance of -1000. It may look like nothing, but it helps to keep things in check.
RedShift1 4y ago
I learned both single and double entry bookkeeping and double entry just makes much more sense.
- nybble41 4y ago
  In practice most computer-based accounting packages only simulate the appearance of a double-entry bookkeeping system. In traditional double-entry bookkeeping one must manually enter the data for each transaction into multiple journals: a minimum of twice, or more than twice for split transactions. This is what allows the journals to be cross-checked for consistency. The reports produced by computer-based "double-entry" systems will always be consistent, however, because they're really just different views of the same set of multi-account transactions recorded in a general ledger rather than distinct single-sided transactions recorded in account-specific journals. "General-ledger accounting" (for lack of a better term) is superior in terms of having a single source of truth, but not very practical for manual accounting since all the transactions are mixed together. The introduction of computers changed all that by making it easy to generate targeted reports from the general ledger.