|
|
|
|
|
by btown
806 days ago
|
|
In all fairness, if you're trying to understand a piece of software like Quickbooks and are not coming from an accounting background, anthropomorphizing each "account" at your company as an individual actor with their own ledger can actually be a helpful mental model. Everything needs to be a dance between actors, and, for instance, when you make a vendor payment in cash, you can only do so as a message sent simultaneously to the Accounts Payable actor and the Cash actor, and each actor must accumulate the effects of that message/event in the way that makes sense. (Namely, each one will translate the event into credits/debits based on the characteristics of who they are, and maintain a balance accordingly. Double-entry, I suppose, means each event must be ingested exactly once by an even number of actors.) If you're building payment rails, that event might itself be one of a pair of events, sourced from a meta-event tracking the transaction intent. (As a meta-point, I find it much more useful to think of the "graph" in accounting as having edges not made of money, but of data in a derived-event hierarchy.) And a first step towards being able to have that mental model is ensuring that you have a good mental model of multiple physical-human actors accumulating events in a structured and atomic way. But the OP doesn't actually make it clear that this is what the analogy is in service of! And I fear that the OP article will cause more confusion than it solves. |
|
No, the number of accounts (actors) does not have to be even. The sum of debits and credits has to be equal (or zero if you like).