Probably in the time lotus was released people would use it for relatively simple calculations involving dates that would not go that far back. So this bug would not be a problem for those uses and go undetected for some time.
Or maybe it even was a deliberate choice to improve performance since the creator would consider it unlikely to use dates decades away.
Probably in the time lotus was released people would use it for relatively simple calculations involving dates that would not go that far back. So this bug would not be a problem for those uses and go undetected for some time. Or maybe it even was a deliberate choice to improve performance since the creator would consider it unlikely to use dates decades away.
Much more likely : they just had a %4 and only added the %100 case when they tested dates with the year 2000. What about 1800? Can someone test this?