I think the analogy works. It's all about the tradeoffs.
Double-entry is harder to grasp, but it has certain properties, like being able to sum along rows or columns. With that property, you can then make assertions like "if anything is off by a cent, then there has been a mistake and it needs to be looked at again."
On the other hand, single-entry is much simpler, you can just record a figure for a date with a reason, and be done with it. It widens the pool of employable candidates, it's easier to onboard new employees, and you don't have any elites screaming at you for doing accounting the wrong way.
If you take a hybrid approach and mix the two, then on average you only have to fill in 1.5 entries per transaction, so it's easier and faster than double-entry, but you can still express some transactions with two entries if it's more elegant, on a case-by-base basis.
Double-entry is harder to grasp, but it has certain properties, like being able to sum along rows or columns. With that property, you can then make assertions like "if anything is off by a cent, then there has been a mistake and it needs to be looked at again."
On the other hand, single-entry is much simpler, you can just record a figure for a date with a reason, and be done with it. It widens the pool of employable candidates, it's easier to onboard new employees, and you don't have any elites screaming at you for doing accounting the wrong way.
If you take a hybrid approach and mix the two, then on average you only have to fill in 1.5 entries per transaction, so it's easier and faster than double-entry, but you can still express some transactions with two entries if it's more elegant, on a case-by-base basis.