<story><title>The Object Model of Self</title><url>https://github.com/pavel-krivanek/articles/tree/master/SelfObjectModel</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>scroot</author><text>Anyone interested in prototype-based languages should also checkout io [1], which is a really clever implementation that doesn&amp;#x27;t get enough love. And unlike Self it will work with your favorite teletype emulation environments.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;iolanguage.org&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;iolanguage.org&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>The Object Model of Self</title><url>https://github.com/pavel-krivanek/articles/tree/master/SelfObjectModel</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>artemonster</author><text>Really nice explanation. Having read almost all papers on this endless debate &amp;quot;Classes vs Prototypes&amp;quot; you&amp;#x27;d get a feeling that prototype-based object system wins in any aspects (expressiveness, flexibility, whatever), and yet almost all prototype-based languages in the end include crude class implementations (as Class for a signle namespace to contain all related traits, constructor method and&amp;#x2F;or prototypical instance for cloning) - interesting, why so? Is this model ingrained in our brains by our education or we do really think that way (i.e. with sets of related entities).</text></comment>