It’s quite easy to get caught up in the technique of TDD and not pay attention to the way unit tests are written: their naming, how maintainable or readable they are, and whether they test the right things or might have bugs. – Roy Osherove, “The Art of Unit Testing“
The distinction between class-based and prototype-based systems reflects a long-lasting philosophical dispute concerning the representation of abstractions. Plato viewed forms — stable, abstract, “ideal” descriptions of things — as having an existence more real than instances of those things in the real world. Class-based languages such as Smalltalk, C++ or Simula are Platonic in their explicit use of classes to represent similarity among collections of objects. Prototype-based systems such as Self [UnS87], Omega [Bla91, Bla94], Kevo [Tai92, Tai93], GlyphicScript [Gly94] and NewtonScript [SLS94] represent another view of the world, in which one does not rely so much on advance categorization and classification, but rather tries to make the concepts in the problem domain as tangible and intuitive as possible. A typical argument in favor of prototypes is that people seem to be a lot better at dealing with specific examples first, then generalizing from them, than they are at absorbing general abstract principles first and later applying them in particular cases.
Prototypes give rise to a broad spectrum of interesting technical, conceptual and philosophical issues. In this paper we take a rather unusual, non-technical approach and investigate object-oriented programming and the prototype-based programming field from a purely philosophical viewpoint. Some historical facts and observations pertaining to objects and prototypes are presented, and conclusions based on those observations are derived.
The whole thing is very much worth reading (click the tiny PDF icon); I found the description of the Kevo language at the end particularly interesting.