OK, let's not do that then. Sadly I do think you're both right. It seems like the best we can do is for all the next-generation Beancount developers to pay attention here and discuss their ideas on this list. Hopefully this won't be too annoying for the majority of people who may not be that interested. But I suspect the volume will be quite low. And at least anything contentious will get the opportunity of feedback from a wider audience.
cheers, Simon On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 at 14:53, Simon Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > I also think it won't work, if the idea is for everyone to work together > in that repo. There just isn't enough incentive to get people > consistently allocating time to that. > > If there's one rather active person absorbing and curating and editing > ideas from the ecosystem, that might work. Or possible 2-3 active > people. What would help sustain the motivation for this ? > > > > On 2026-03-04 14:17, 'Simon Guest' via Beancount wrote: > > Well, if you think it won't work then perhaps it's not a good idea! > > > > Are you thinking there is insufficient interest in the community for > > refining such ideas collaboratively? If that really is the case then I > > fear we are doomed to suffer from fragmentation, as different people go > > off with their own ideas in different directions, and we lose a coherent > > vision for what it means to be a Beancount implementation. > > > > Or did you see a different problem? > > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2026, 2:10 am Martin Blais, <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:58 PM 'Simon Guest' via Beancount > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > So, towards caring for those little details in a collaborative > > way, how do you feel about creating a new GitHub repo, say, > > beancount-vnext-rfc in the beancount organization? The > > intention being that developers wishing to gain some clarity on > > what to implement can create an issue, and interested parties > > can comment. That way we will collect the discussion in a > > central place which is searchable and contains the full history > > of comments on each topic. GitHub issues are quite good for > > this, as anyone can subscribe to an issue or to the whole repo. > > > > > > I don't mind creating beancount-rfc but I think it won't work. > > > > > > We have seen two instances of this being required already, > > regarding the new approach to inventory being taken by > > TurboBean, and the false-start on plugins I was investigating. > > It is clear that this mailing list is not going to suffice, and > > trying to discuss all that here is only going to annoy people > > who aren't interested in alternative implementations (which I > > concede may be most people right now). > > > > If you created the repo and gave me write access, I could set up > > an RFC template to try to get things going in the right > direction. > > > > > > Sure, I can do this over the weekend > > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:18, Martin Blais <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > So long a thread. > > I appreciate the flowers but let's not forget the original > > idea is a John Wiegley creation, I merely copied and then > > iterated and recreated a few times. Simon Michael also > > accumulated a following with his Haskell work. Credit > > where credit is due. > > > > Re. BDFL indeed I don't have time. I'm giving all my cycles > > to someone else at the moment. (Thankfully doing lots of > > agentic stuff so it's not like I have FOMO.) > > > > I think the idea of having unified tests is a great one but > > it's unlikely to happen, people enjoy the 0 to 1 feeling > > mostly and this won't change with agents. Maybe you can > > extract all the tests from my source code and find a way to > > them across equivalent systems (see how I assert some things > > in the beancount syntax itself, you don't necessarily need > > code, you can create a syntax). > > > > The main challenge to new implementors is going to be > > completeness. > > With the AIs zero-to-0.8 is almost instant; your enemy will > > be 0.8 to 1.0. > > Lots of little details to care for. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:51 PM Justus Pendleton > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I think it is a great idea to encourage experimentation > > and evolution of the fileformat/featureset. > > > > My feeling is that Martin probably doesn't have the > > bandwidth to play any significant BDFL-type role > > commenting on various proposals or shepherding towards > > consensus. So the beancount family is probably better > > served with something a bit more free-form. I could see > > value in a centralised repository where alt-beancounts > > could post "hey, here's what I'm trying out", a bit like > > we've seen with the various flavours of markdown over > > the years which also don't have a BDFL but have evolved > > in a bit more chaotic fashion. > > > > I think the biggest value-add at the moment would simply > > be some kind of unique number for each change from > > vanilla-beancount so people could talk about "change #12 > > in limabean is easier to use but less powerful than the > > similar change #26 in prolog-bean" and provide a focus > > for discussions like RFCs do. I can't imagine trying to > > enforce too much structure on either the document or the > > process would be very useful, simply because I imagine > > most people writing alt-beancounts aren't terribly > > invested in writing long documents in prescribed formats > > for what is still largely a personal project. > > > > But if you have more lightweight examples from smaller > > projects (i.e. not rust or python which understandably > > have rigorous processes) it might help generate more > ideas. > > > > On Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 11:25:49 AM UTC+10:30 > > Simon Guest wrote: > > > > The Beancount developer landscape seems to be > > thriving at the moment with several recent > > announcements about new implementations. This is > > certainly exciting, and it's great to see such > > creativity. > > > > Martin has made a huge contribution to the plain > > text accounting community, both with the very well > > designed original Beancount system which we all > > love, and also the extensive documentation and test > > suite. Thank you indeed! These were certainly > > enablers for my own limabean <https://github.com/ > > tesujimath/limabean>. > > > > And so now times are changing, and Beancount is in > > some ways being liberated from its Python origins. > > We are seeing work in Rust, Zig, Clojure, and who > > knows what to come. Exciting times indeed! But how > > will we avoid fragmentation? > > > > It is clear that in future we will have multiple > > implementations of Beancount-like systems. That is > > not what I am concerned about. My concerns are: > > > > 1. Preserving a common file format > > > > 2. Preserving common core behaviour > > > > I expect and celebrate a varied approach to user > > interface (Beancount Query Language, Fava, or Fava- > > like GUI, Clojure, whatever else). This is a > > fruitful area for exploration. So too, the plugin > > ecosystem will surely diverge. I agree with Moritz, > > the author of TurboBean <https://github.com/ > > themoritz/turbobean> (cool project!) that you > > wouldn't want to embed a Python interpreter just for > > plugins if you don't already need it. And with > > limabean I am exploring the idea of not needing > > plugins at all. > > > > It should be easy for users to try out different > > implementations, which requires (1) and (2) above, > > and perhaps more. > > > > The vNext document <https://beancount.github.io/ > > docs/beancount_v3.html> has some interesting ideas, > > which explains TurboBean diverging with a new > > approach to inventory. Is this the future? I would > > like to know, as I would then have to follow along > > with limabean! > > > > What I would really like to see is some kind of RFC > > process, like which is used for evolution of the > > Rust language and ecosystem. I hope that Martin > > would like to be the BDFL for some kind of RFC-like > > process which unifies all these parallel > > developments, in terms of defining core behaviour, / > > especially where this differs from OG Beancount/ (in > > fact, probably only where it differs). > > > > In summary, I think we should embrace and celebrate > > the current divergence of implementation work in the > > Beancount ecosystem, but take some steps to mitigate > > the otherwise inevitable fragmentation. > > > > All comments welcome! > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "Beancount" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/ > > d/msgid/beancount/3a441c4c-5e54-4ef0- > > bc6d-39f7bb683923n%40googlegroups.com <https:// > > groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/3a441c4c-5e54-4ef0- > > bc6d-39f7bb683923n%40googlegroups.com? > > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups "Beancount" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > > msgid/beancount/ > > CAK21%2BhPGzU%2BFjuKh_oxXsQ7eQMcigTUVygPv%3DQPQ8Do%3DqO- > > iEg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ > > beancount/ > > CAK21%2BhPGzU%2BFjuKh_oxXsQ7eQMcigTUVygPv%3DQPQ8Do%3DqO- > > iEg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups "Beancount" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > > it, send an email to [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ > > beancount/CAFhGSbt4fY0W6dX- > > Zd9W2%2B3PdGnSXPQZsBzGUsiQwspGQLnPPw%40mail.gmail.com <https:// > > groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAFhGSbt4fY0W6dX- > > Zd9W2%2B3PdGnSXPQZsBzGUsiQwspGQLnPPw%40mail.gmail.com? > > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Beancount" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > send an email to [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ > > beancount/CAK21%2BhN33-5u0hb8d7%3DVOo- > > LXczMHjV59GzDb03S6gajze2CWw%40mail.gmail.com <https:// > > groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhN33-5u0hb8d7%3DVOo- > > LXczMHjV59GzDb03S6gajze2CWw%40mail.gmail.com? > > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Beancount" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ > > beancount/CAFhGSbveq8AWX- > > SA%2BZCPU1Eg27YNoRaQb2Tknj_%3D2BRtaUeZxQ%40mail.gmail.com <https:// > > groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAFhGSbveq8AWX- > > SA%2BZCPU1Eg27YNoRaQb2Tknj_%3D2BRtaUeZxQ%40mail.gmail.com? > > utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Beancount" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/0ce244dd-6b4f-454c-aa58-d6dd1bc92448%40joyful.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAFhGSbvf8Z4%3D9Lkt9kGHVWULY374cGXG3saDMM4JYpre37U-0A%40mail.gmail.com.
