Fix two typos in the benchmark comparison.

🤖 Generated with [ECA](https://eca.dev)

Co-Authored-By: eca-agent <git@eca.dev>

_02_.Writing-programs.sz

@@ -802,9 +802,9 @@ Go is the obvious point of comparison: goroutines and unbuffered channels are th
 | An 8-way choose where one branch fires | 154                  | 145                      | 396 | 449                        |
 }
 
-In the choose row only the sender can use @code{chan-put}, since the receiving side has to use channel-receive (and thus allocates). On the ring, syncing an event costs about a sixth of each message. For some reason, thi ring inside a nested scope is faster in bjolang, and I haven't figured out why yet.
+In the choose row only the sender can use @code{chan-put}, since the receiving side has to use channel-receive (and thus allocates). On the ring, syncing an event costs about a sixth of each message. For some reason, this ring inside a nested scope is faster in bjolang, and I haven't figured out why yet.
 
-These are small benchmarks on one machine, and they only measure the cost of the concurrency primitives, not of the work between rendevouz. Go is ahead in other ways: a Go channel operation never allocates, where a Bjolang send synced as an event allocates 32 bytes and a @code{choose} 40 (@code{chan-put} and @code{chan-get} allocate nothing). Any Go function can block without being written as a bjoroutine and the Go scheduler preempts a goroutine that computes for too long, where a fiber has to be moved off the pool with @code{spawn/thread}.
+These are small benchmarks on one machine, and they only measure the cost of the concurrency primitives, not of the work between rendezvous. Go is ahead in other ways: a Go channel operation never allocates, where a Bjolang send synced as an event allocates 32 bytes and a @code{choose} 40 (@code{chan-put} and @code{chan-get} allocate nothing). Any Go function can block without being written as a bjoroutine and the Go scheduler preempts a goroutine that computes for too long, where a fiber has to be moved off the pool with @code{spawn/thread}.
 
 What Bjolang offers that Go does not is in the CML vocabulary rather than in the numbers. A Go @code{select} is a statement, its cases are fixed in the source, and a channel operation cannot be passed to a function, wrapped, or combined with others. In Bjolang an event is a value, which is what made @code{within} above a two-line function that works on any event, and @code{choose}, @code{wrap}, @code{guard} and @code{with-nack} build new events out of old ones. Go has no structured concurrency either. Waiting for goroutines, stopping them, and reporting their failures are a @code{sync.WaitGroup}, a @code{context.Context} passed to every function and checked at every channel operation, and an @code{errgroup}, written by hand each time. A goroutine that nothing waits for leaks without a sound. In Bjolang a scope does all of that by construction: it waits for its fibers, raises their failures when it ends, releases the files they opened, and cancels them through a token that every @code{sync} watches without being asked.