On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:17 PM 'Simon Guest' via Beancount < [email protected]> 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? > I just think ideas that work always come bottom up. It's so rare that someone says "let's form a group to achieve X" and then "X" gets achieved. The working dynamic in open source is one or a few individuals axed to get something they really really personally want and then take enough pride in it to make it available to others. That's why nearly all the open source project have 1 or few principal creators. Look I don't want to discourage you, I'm just saying, if you really want something done, drive it yourself without trying too hard to get consensus from other people. To recycle the trope: just do it. Do things the way you dream of, and if it's great you'll then have some takers to discuss with. I've shared all my ideas on what I think needs to be done on Beancount in these documents, feel free to recycle or ignore them or take them to a brand new place your own. On Thu, 5 Mar 2026, 2:10 am Martin Blais, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:58 PM 'Simon Guest' via Beancount < >> [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]> 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]> >>>> 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]. >>>>> 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]. >>>> 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]. >>> 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]. >> 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]. > 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/CAK21%2BhPGBL-b1J0OE9_oCOk3DWGXH_A0BLK_gORanfoV_fEe3A%40mail.gmail.com.
