I find it a strange choice to explain double-entry bookkeeping with the example of "one entry for Alice, one entry for Bob". That's really not what it's about. It's obvious that a transaction with two parties could be recorded in two places, but to me the crucial point of double-entry bookkeeping is that it requires two entries for each party of the transaction. So if Alice buys book from Bob, four entries are made.
I get that this is supposed to be a simplification for educational purposes, but I find this is simplification is an oversimplification, since it omits the key point.
I get that this is supposed to be a simplification for educational purposes, but I find this is simplification is an oversimplification, since it omits the key point.