Wait, what, is he serious? I mean, truly serious? This isn't some elaborate hoax, like MAVAV? Class-based OO can offer the developer features such as static me

Wait, what, is he serious? I mean, truly serious? This isn't some elaborate hoax, like MAVAV? Class-based OO can offer the developer features such as static methods, abstract classes, interfaces, method overloading and operator overloading. None of these features can be offered by prototypal objects. Okay, here's a suggestion for anyone who wants to write about OO: do some research first. When the programming paradigm is different, that means that you do things differently. Just because you don't do it the exact same way you're used to, i.e. declare a class and a method inside it with the "static" keyword, doesn't mean it's not there. Had he mentioned typing concerns in prototype-based OO languages, it would've been an interesting read. But this is just plain silly. Oh, and by the way, I guess that any language that isn't a "true OO language" is a toy language, right?