Difference between revisions of "Stop Foolish Rounding"

This page serves as the nexus for a community effort to stop foolish rounding of monetary values in business applications. Only a community will due because the roots of the problem run deep.

Founding Rant

I read a sophisticated email list where some of the best minds in software testing meet. Alan Jorgensen recently threw some dirt at software developers' feet on that list when he blamed them for the industry's failure to solve problems at their root cause:

I expect that there will be reluctance from the software development people for such methods are not consistent with the current software development culture. The idea of root cause analysis, for instance, is certainly alien to that culture. If your management team has been grown from software development, it will be a very hard sell.

I chose to defend programmers by citing an example where Jorgensen's for-instance, root cause analysis, was so often foiled by non-programmers that the real cause of many bugs has been taken of the table:

Root cause analysis, ha, ha, ha.

Allow me a brief rant. Consider the program:

a + b

This is a very failure prone program because it fails silently in many useful cases.

Root cause analysis would suggest that one should modify + to simply compute the right answer in all useful cases. This has been done by programmers over and over but these implementations of + are judged "odd ball" by management who would rather run a strict java or c# shop out of some weird distortion of the "prudent man" rule. (The prudent man rule says that you can't be accused of being reckless with your investor's money if you are doing the same thing everyone else does.)

I wrote financial software once and traced the root cause of difficult bugs to the implementation of + for data of types Date and Money. Fortunately I was programming in Smalltalk where the implementation of + was accessible. I took several days to correct these deficiencies after which my life, and that of my customers, became much better.

You might be thinking that there is nothing wrong with + and that Ward is just being cranky. I then say to you, you have not gone far enough in your root cause analysis.

And I say to business, who has selected and paid for most of today's computing infrastructure, you are fools for having funded 50 years of software and not yet gotten a + that works well for time or money.

I once advised an international company on how to implement a useful + for money. The developers loved it. The customers loved it. But the database didn't like it much at all. I met one of the developers a few years later. He asked, "do you have any idea how hard it is to persist that money abstraction to the database?" Yes, I had to admit that I knew it would be trouble but I also knew that they would get through it somehow once they got hooked on getting right answers in all of their money calculations.

(Aside: The database problem comes from the fact that the sum of a+b can take twice the storage of either a or b when a and b are international currency. This requires either a variable size storage mechanism or preallocation of space for hundreds of currencies. Databases favor neither solution. Again business has been fooled by the database vendors, not the programmers.)

I saw recently where the IEEE was proposing a standard for "decimal floating point" under the misguided believe that this would alleviate rounding errors. They are fools, for they attempted to do this within fixed sized storage, the one "feature" of floating a "point".

(Aside: The program a / b introduces additional potential errors which are again more correctly solved by variable allocation of storage than by "floating" a "point", decimal or otherwise.)'

I have intentionally stopped one sentence short of offering a complete solution in each of these cases. This is so that you can print this email and give it to the next Six Sigma guy that comes around as a test. Ask him to explain what I am talking about. If he gets it, ask him why he isn't hounding the vendors into fixing + instead of bothering you. If he doesn't get it, ask him how his methods are going to work on large programs when they can't find the bug in a + b.

(Aside: I heard that my financial software written for DOS is still in use today managing trillions of dollars. I also heard that the current owner/vendor was trying to meet customer demand by porting it to an industry standard database rather than the "odd ball" one I wrote for them. This porting effort was not going well. No surprise.)

You may need to read this post several times to get all the good advice that I've hidden between the sentences. I thank you for your attention. Best regards. -- Ward

Now I find myself in the position of having said, here is a problem and your solution doesn't work, without offering a solution myself. Thus this page. It may remain a public rant, like a blog post, or, it might seed the organization that takes on this persistent problem in computer software. I hope the latter. -- Ward 11:37, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

Call to Action

Um, what are we suppose to do about this?

Let's change both programming languages and database systems to have good representations for money. We may find that the shortest path to this goal is through the promotion of dynamic representations such as those Ward exploited in Smalltalk, and then using this capability to deliver good implementations of money.

Don't we have this already? Strangely no, not in the mainline languages and databases.

How do we proceed? I'm not sure. Let's start by following the script for organization formation offered below.

Clarifications

The storage space of the sum is the storage space of the less valued currency plus one digit. That does not imply that it needs twice as much storage. The programmer will normally assign a longer variable and that might be eventually one with a double space consumption. Especially in Smalltalk that would not be necessary if a special currency operation is programmed. -- Hans Hartmann

This would only be true if the quantities were fungible, which is not the case with mixed currencies. See Wikipedia on Fungibility. -- Ward

The plus one digit answer assumes something that I think Ward didn't assume, which is that one currency is converted into the other. However, doing that brings on a whole host of other problems, starting with: "Why did you pick that specific conversion rate and not another one?", and continuing with "How do you fix it if some big stakeholder decides that they don't like the rate you picked? All in all, I think I'd rather deal with the problems of doubling the field length. Those problems are much more tractable. -- Pat McGee

I understand your argument about fungibility, however I would not speak of an operator "+" in the meaning of addition. It would resort to adding apples and pears. -- Hans

I considered the problem very similar to the one of complex numbers where mathematicians do agree on the definition of +. In particular, if A = 5, and B = 6i, then A+B = (5, 6i). Likewise, if A = 100 USD, and B = 200 YEN, then A+B = (100 USD, 200 YEN). I had several hundred dimensions instead of complex number's two. This lead me to choose a variable sized representation. -- Ward

Awesome post. I only recently found out about machine epsilon (some things we learn WAY too late in life). I thought you might be interested in this paper: Mindless (pdf) -- Michael Bolton

Organization Formation

This page is an experiment in fomenting action. I'm expecting the process to proceed as follows:

• Individual has some passion for a subject, but not the energy to pursue it.
• Individual rants somewhere, then converts that rant to an organizational seed at AboutUs.
• Google finds the seed and introduces the page name into the internet's vocabulary.
• Individual spreads the rant around in many circles, suggests folks just google for it.
• A loose community forms around the page, with diverse ideas as to the way forward.
• The page, and mechanisms like Consensus Polling, tightens the community.
• The community acts yielding some positive result that wouldn't have happened any other way.