Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I appreciate the help, but I think the goal of understanding the money coming in and going out is too abstract - what does it mean to understand, and at what level is understanding achieved?

The point I want to make is that all the things described in the article should be described in terms of their relation to the problems being solved. Because the article failed to establish this connection you can say "a spreadsheet conveys the data better than a graph", or vice versa, and there's no way to decide whether that's true or not.

For instance, being able to answer the following questions:

- Do I have enough money to continue operating?

- Are there any unexpected losses?

- If there are unexpected losses, where are they?

- Are there unexpected gains? And where are they?

- If I want to spend more, how much can I safely spend?

- How are accounts likely to change in the future, and can the above questions be answered then?

Maybe there are others. Questions an exec, or a spouse, or the tax office might ask. The goal needs to have that level of specificity. When an accountant "balances the books" it's not an arbitrary exercise, it's trying to answer one of those questions above.

For the record, I absolutely want an accounting for computer scientists guide. I'm not exactly interested in wrestling with and mapping the concepts myself, at least with the free time I have right now.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: