The end of the accounting search

There is some creativity in defining where to stash this or that number so that everything works out in the best way for the business. As others said, it's a bit like solving puzzles, and it's harder than it looks - it requires a significant level of preparation, and keeping up with constantly changing regulations.

What a lot of them also get pride from is formatting their reports "just so" - so that they're readable and enjoyable by businesspeople, while still being exact, comprehensive, and meeting formal standards. To me, that sort of thing is kinda boring and trivial, but for them it can be career-defining, life-or-death stuff. In a way, it's a hyper-specialized branch of graphic design.

It could be because it's indeed so easy that it's boring, or could be that anyone with the necessary knowledge of accounting standards makes way more money doing other stuff than coding for free.

EDIT: rather than downvoting, maybe you could engage? Following the thread back the question was about accountants using Excel and then someone weighed in that they use Libre/open office. I have never seen an accountant use libre office for accounts work, hence my question. Are you an accountant who moved from Excel because of whatever, or was your comment irrelevant?

> Outside of fundamentally better workflow improvements, most professional fields don't randomly change their tools. If you gave a professional artist a new pencil that had to be gripped differently for no reason, they'd throw it in the trash.

>

> But in software, we tolerate buggy tools that change all the time for no discernible reason. We tolerate software that simultaneously targets professionals and casual users, serving both segments poorly. We tolerate software that can't be customized or adapted for specific workflows. It's tough to put into words, but if you watch a musician or a painter interact with their tools, there's a very clear difference that emerges, and over time you start to realize how much better all of their stuff is.

>

> In most professional artistic settings, workflow changes only happen because they have a clear benefit -- drawing from your shoulder instead of your wrist, changing your embouchure if you play an instrument. And even in those fields, it's generally accepted that over time people will end up with very specialized setups that are very consistent and refined and that remain constant for years and years.

>

> Only in the software industry would someone tell me that my professional tools should change because change is inherently good. Only in commercial software would an elegant, consistent interface like Markdown that allowed me to build up decades of muscle memory until my computer was an extension of my fingers and I didn't need to think about the way I typed -- only in software would that be considered a bad thing.

> Such systems are unwieldy to work with and difficult to get started with. In truth, many of them appear to have been developed as platforms for consulting businesses, though surely nobody would deliberately make their software complex and tricky just to motivate clients to purchase their services.

Or perhaps some businesses have complications to deal with that go beyond what a newsletter website needs? Some businesses have inventory, subsidiaries, multiple currencies, have to report sales tax in multiple countries with ever changing requirements (hence the support and updates that this writer doesn't think are required). Some companies have local statutory books that are different than their group books.

Really it is a bit like learning 'echo "hello"' and calling oneself a programmer. Then maybe one might ask why are lwn making Linux so complicated...