|
|
|
|
|
|
by somat
850 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, a simplified schema like that fails to capture the entire semantics of a transaction. However, I find for personal finance I never need full transaction semantics and simplified two party semantics are much easier to enter and calculate. I will be honest, I use ledger and I like how it can express the complex transaction, however I also have to admit that I have never used them. If I were storing my finance data in a relational database or a spreadsheet, I would be very tempted to use the simplified two party model. I probably would not actually do it, but when I am elbow deep in code making sure to handle N-Party transactions correctly, I would be tempted. The author of the plain text accounting system(PTA) went with this simplified model and made a good case for it, one line per transaction is much easier to parse, for both the human reading them and the machine. note that PTA does support split transactions but they are the special case. https://mandoc.bsd.lv/pta/README |
|
|