

An API for your personal finances - rendezvouscp
https://ironmoney.com/api/

======
lutusp
If this was an open-source project, it might be interesting. As it is, users
have no idea what the core code is doing, or what it might do in the future.

There has never been a more eloquent argument in favor of open-source than a
closed-source project like this one, that tries to portray itself as a
harmless, useful library for everyman.

~~~
rendezvouscp
Hm, interesting. I’ve thought about making Iron Money open-source, but I’ve
never thought of a really compelling argument. Other than the transparency of
what’s going on behind the scenes, what makes for an eloquent argument for
making it open-source?

~~~
lutusp
> Other than the transparency of what’s going on behind the scenes, what makes
> for an eloquent argument for making it open-source?

First argument: people will be willing to use it. Consider what you're
offering -- a closed-source library that manages people's financial
transactions. You may or may not be surprised to hear that people are
reluctant to trust closed-source libraries that process financial
transactions, account details, and patterns of economic behavior.

Second argument: open-source libraries are more likely to be successfully
scrutinized for security flaws, and repaired in advance of exploitation. An
irony of open-source is that over time it becomes more secure, not less,
indeed one often-heard explanation for Windows' notorious insecurity is that
it is closed-source, so the first revelation of a vulnerability is, not when
errors are noticed by routine scans of source code, but when they're exploited
in the wild.

Third argument: people will be able to see how your code works. This isn't a
license to steal, it's a way for people to find out if your code meets their
needs and behaves as they expect (or as accounting standards require).

I once debugged an accounting package that had a weird error -- two runs on
the same transaction database never produced the same outcome. After a lot of
back and forth, I got the developer to open the source, and discovered that
his way of rounding off to the nearest penny was to generate a random binary
number -- if 0, round down, if 1, round up. It was breathtakingly stupid, and
we would never have solved it without seeing the source.

Fourth argument -- you can't arbitrarily shut down users of your library. An
open-source library survives the extinction of its source or a change in
policy. A closed-source library can't do that in any meaningful sense.

That should do. :)

~~~
plinkplonk
"people are reluctant to trust closed-source libraries that process financial
transactions, account details, and patterns of economic behavior."

Lots of people trust closed source _applications_ though. QuickBooks, Turbotax
..

Your point is still valid, though I don't know what the exact differences
between Iron Money and (say QuickBooks) are.

~~~
lutusp
> Lots of people trust closed source applications though. QuickBooks, Turbotax
> ...

No, they don't _trust_ them, they use them because they have no choice. And
the problems caused by Intuit's closed-source business model are legion:

[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/intuit_turbotax.htm...](http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/intuit_turbotax.html)

The above sounds like a recitation of distrust, not trust.

