Nice article, and nicely written.
> My code from attempt #3 was effectively using base-255, with each byte acting as a single "digit".
I think the author means base-256, not base-255.
> My code from attempt #3 was effectively using base-255, with each byte acting as a single "digit".
I think the author means base-256, not base-255.
1) Naming things
2) Cach3) Concurr invalidation
ency
4) Off-by-one errors