[GNC-dev] About budgets in 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10

[Geert Janssens]

Op dinsdag 28 april 2020 15:58:30 CEST schreef Adrien Monteleone:
> Geert,
> 
> I concur.
> 
> As long as the internals treat the equation as set to equal zero, then
> signage is necessary and it should be consistent. I appreciate the efforts
> being made to achieve this.
> 
> My (pie in the sky) request for consideration is the idea that such a
> treatment of the equation is inconsistent with accounting texts and
> practice (as best I can tell) and should one day be changed so that GnuCash
> more closely follows how accountancy treats the equation. This would
> eliminate issues with signage as there wouldn’t be any. All ‘normal’ values
> (unless contra-balanced) would be positive. (and even then, signage would
> still be a display consideration that is based on a choice to not present
> the balance as either a debit or credit, but with a sign)
> 
> The equation is:
> 
> Assets = Liabilities + Equity
> 
> It is *not*:
> 
> Assets - Liabilities - Equity = 0
> 
What I take from all this is that as long as you display data in two columns (a debit and a credit) 
you can follow the logic as you suggest.

However numbers are not just meant for displaying, one needs to do calculations on them as 
well. And at that point signs will matter. Whether a certain number increase or decrease your 
balance is a matter of sign.
So regardless of how you interpret the equations at some point it all boils down to dry maths. 
The exact internal representation is less important as long as it's consistent.

How to display this internal representation to the user is mostly a matter of taste. And clearly 
various opinions on that exist based on user's background and experience.

> I’m sure there was a reasonable basis for the decision decades ago to employ
> the equation in this form, I question whether the reasoning still holds and
> posit that it might have produced more work and effort than it has saved,
> or will. (not just for developers, but for the many users as well) I don’t
> know if this reasoning ever made it into any sort of documentation or code
> comments. (I admit, I haven’t looked –yet)
> 
> I understand that saying such a change would be ‘major’ is a gross
> understatement.
> 
:)

> I’ll keep testing the beta build(s) and reporting anything that appears
> inconsistent with sign treatment, or incorrect with the basic math results.



Geert