Cash Flow report vs. Income Statement

[Ken Heard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:

> When I first started to use GNU cash, I found the intermixing of the
> accounting principles information in the documentation useful.  I think it
> should be kept, especially since it it not going to change, and it is
> useful for those coming to GC from tools like M$ Money, and Quicken,
> which are NOT double entry accounting systems.  IANAA.

On the other hand I found that the intermixing got in the way of my
figuring out how to use GnuCash. I had already been using a double entry
accounting application dating from the days of DOS and consequently did
not need to be told about it.  The extent of this sort of intermixing
should emerge from the process of reaching a consensus on the three
questions raised in my post to the list of 2009-06-17 at 15:12 eastern
daylight time North America.

> A reference manual would require the developers to write it, and that
> would take time from developing new functionality.  It would be useful,
> and might help bring new developers up to speed more quickly if it were
> maintained. If it were not, then it would quickly become obsolete, and
> more harmful than useful.

I have found over the years that most technical and scientific people,
as soon as they have developed something, would prefer not having to
bother to explain it for the benefit of the world at large. Instead they
would rather use their time continuing their research and development.

New knowledge nevertheless depends on previous knowledge.  If the
previous knowledge is not documented it ultimately is lost.

You mention that documentation would help the coders *if it were kept up
to date*.  Yes, the coders would have to draft changes in the
documentation as the code is updated.  Once this draft is completed the
editors get involved in the process and produce documentation to serve
the various audiences intended to be reached, including the coders.

In view of the foregoing I separate the developers into two categories:
coders and editors.  No new code should be released until *both* the
coders *and* the editors have done their respective jobs.  It may take
longer in the short run but save time in the long run.

>  From a developers POV, well written code
> documents itself.  

Here you are equating coders with developers, forgetting the editors.
- From the POV of editors, even well written code probably does require
documentation for all users.

I have not looked that the GC sources, so I will not
> give an opinion of GC in this matter, but I have coded for many years,
> and I assume that if I had an itch I wanted to scratch badly enough,
> would would just crack the code, and ask questions when I needed to.  

A coder could do that, but any user?

> I
> have periodically seen questions on the list, like "where do I start if
> I want to do X?"  I seen those a legitimate questions, because that give
> the questioner, a head start on working on HIS itch, and s/he will learn
> the peripheral stuff as they get lead to it.

What I have found frustrating is looking for answers in the
documentation and not finding them there.  Then I am forced to write to
the list, after wasting my time looking for the information I want in
the documentation, and either not finding it there or not understanding
it when I do.

I have now taken to writing to the list and ignoring the documentation.
 Is that what the coders really want?

Remember, I am an editor not a coder.  Editors should have the same
status in the process as the coders.  They are both developers; to be
effective each needs the other.

Regards, Ken Heard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko6SAQACgkQlNlJzOkJmTcBmwCeLE5LDDNX70ilAl++3doyKr21
It4AnieFAWQVfiWBbgfCjxVNyPM4jDZS
=KHYU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----