Re: How to Remove duplicates line in the txt files

In article
<854bca6b-0954-445c-b146-c79e5928b1eb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Derek
<derekrss@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 7:51=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Phred) wrote:
>> In article
<f1b3eee6-8b13-491b-82ee-0f3cbfeec...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>om>, Derek <derek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 8:47=3DA0am, Ted Davis <tda...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> I was paraphrasing Edsger W. Dijkstra - in _Selected Writings on
>> >> Computing: A Personal Perspective_, he said "It is practically
impossible
>> >> to teach good programming style to students that have had prior
exposure
>> >> to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated
beyond 
>> >> hope of regeneration."
>>
>> >One of the oft-ignored points about that do***ent (available via
>> >http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_Dijkstra)
is that it put the boot
>> >into every major language of the day except for Dijksta's favourite,
>> >Algol. =A0BASIC was not alone. FORTRAN, PL1/1, APL and COBOL all got
>> >their own put downs. If C had been significant at the time Dijkstra
>> >was writing the do***ent, I am sure that it would have got a snide
>> >remark of its very own.
>>
>> ALGOL! FCOL -- is that a "language"?
>>
>> 35 years ago I did a lot of data analysis on a PDP-10 during which
>> time I became very fluent in FORTRAN (mostly long since forgotten as
>> not used in 32 years :).
>>
>> Out of curiosity at the time I bought the PDP-10 manuals for BASIC,
>> COBOL, and ALGOL. They all left me unimpressed. (IIRC that old
>> version of BASIC required every statement to be on its own line).
>>
>> Of the three, ALGOL was the only one I ended up ignoring *completely*.
>> At this distance I can no longer recall why, but it clearly didn't
>> strike me as something I would ever *need* to know. :-)
>
><Grin>, fair enough,Phred. As it turns 35 years later, ALGOL was
>pretty influential though. Pascal was its most obvious successor but
>in fact the modern versions of BASIC, FORTRAN, (and even COBOL), not
>to mention C and its successors have all absorbed the ALGOL 60 way of
>doing things. Even the OO languages were developments based on the
>ALGOL dialect, SIMULA-67.  Funny how things work out.

That's very interesting.  Thanks for taking the trouble to follow up.
Now... I wonder if I can still find that old ALGOL manual so I can 
look at it in a new light! ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]