Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS Excel Working As Designed
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:57:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vmf5b6$d902$2@dont-email.me>
References: <181b83589a58e91d$131121$32720$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <spqdnTWpWv8iUhf6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <vmenu5$9hcv$2@dont-email.me>
 <-L6dnZ9Zr8JUdBf6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@supernews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 03:57:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="338959a320eb50c2f56ca8a3a632bf73";
	logging-data="435202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Y/yRBpX0ursZT3bMvrRYG3m1NDqki/iI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qGTg/Z4LwjkQKLB2Pabiw/xX04U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <-L6dnZ9Zr8JUdBf6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Bytes: 2749

On 1/17/25 6:37 PM, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
>> machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
>> “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
>> first place.
> 
> It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3.  Multiplan (and
> later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that.

Huh.  That's a TIL for me.


> This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
> in 1979 on the Apple II.  Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
> 1983.

Makes sense, even before contemplating if their original choice was 
motivated because of how limited memory/storage/etc was in that era, or 
just a lack of sophistication on leap year rules ... or both, since it 
was decades prior to Y2K awareness.

> BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
> probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Well, in modern context it isn't all that hard (once one is aware of the 
limitation/requirement) to write some code that addresses 'special 
rules' of how to address dates earlier than 1 March 1900, including the 
compatibility layer for using files from other spreadsheet apps.


-hh