On 9/14/14 2:52 PM, Martin Blais wrote:
I don't think the *Ledgers need more features; on the contrary: less
features and another iteration on their design would be more beneficial
IMO. The current calculation model is insufficient for many simple uses,
e.g. listing stock trades and deriving meaningful numbers from them,
e.g., answering simple questions like "what's the annual return on my
self-directed portfolio?", and the way many of the options Ledger
provides interact with each other is unclear (at least unclear to
several users, based on the answers to simple clarifications I've asked
for on this list).
What we should be looking at is not so much a list of features, but the
list of financial problems that one is able to solve with a particular
model and templates and examples for solving these problems.
Very well said Martin.
I wrote:
A single project isn't always big enough to accommodate different
technology experiments, design ideas, project management styles and
end-product needs.
In fact it won't be in this particular space, which is too interesting
and useful and large to be satisfied by one project. Thankfully we can
expect continued experiments and competition.
Personally, I want to see both 1. a very solid trouble-free end-user
tool building on the Ledger design, and 2. a toolkit/construction
set/libraries/platform for experiments and growth.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
