And those options that do affect the semantics of transactions always appear in the input file (nothing on the command-line) and are distinct from the options of particular tools. Beancount offers a minimalistic approach: while there are some small number of options, it tries really hard not to have them. How these options interact and some of the semantic consequences of many of these options are confusing and very subtle. This surely will be appealing to many, but to me it seems it has grown into a very complicated monolithic tool. As is evidenced in the user manual, Ledger provides a myriad of options. Secondly, there's a design ethos difference. And because of this, it does not provide support for unbalanced/virtual postings it's not a shortcoming, it's on purpose. After all, cross-checking is why we choose to use the DE method in the first place, why not go hardcore on checking for correctness? Beancount should appeal to anyone who does not trust themselves too much. It adds more automated cross-checks than the double-entry method provides. a plugin that refuses postings to non-leaf accounts, or that refuses more than one commodity per account, or that requires you declare all accounts with Open directives choose your level of pedanticity a-la-carte. And it allows you to place extra constraints on your chart of accounts, e.g. It optionally checks that proceeds match sale price (sellgains plugin). It doesn't assume the user is able or should be relied upon to input transactions in the correct order (dated assertions instead of file-order assertions). For instance, if you added a share of AAPL at $100 to an empty account it won't let you remove a share of AAPL at $101 from it you just don't have one. It imposes a number of constraints on the input. In contrast, Beancount is highly pessimistic. Sign errors on unasserted accounts are very common, for instance. My experience with data entry of the kind we're doing is that it's impossible to do this right without many automated checks. It assumes it's easy to input correct data by a user. Philosophical Differences įirst, Ledger is optimistic. My purpose here is not to shoot down other systems, but rather to highlight material differences to help newcomers understand how these systems vary in their operation and capabilities, and perhaps to stimulate a fruitful discussion about design choices with the other developers. Keep in mind that this document is written from the perspective of Beancount and as its author, reflects my own biased views for what the design of a CLI accounting system should be. This document highlights key differences between these systems, as they differ sharply in their design and implementations. The question of how Beancount differs from Ledger & HLedger has come up a few times on mailing-lists and in private emails. A Proposal for an Improvement on Inventory Booking.No Forecasting or Periodic Transactions.Inventory Booking & Cost Basis Treatment.A Comparison of Beancount and Ledger Hledger.Running Beancount and Generating Reports.
0 kommentar(er)
