The first example is too complicated

[kniazkov]

The first example is short enough, but still, and it is too complex to be the first example. It contains some syntax, which is explained later in the text.
What is an object? It is the basic essence of language. Let's first define an empty object that contains nothing, and say "that there is an object with no attributes at all. But now we can add some data to the empty object". Next, we'll describe a more complex object, but in which no calculations are made, say a vector:

[] > vector
  2 > dx
  3 > dy

I'm not sure I described it correctly, but nevertheless. And now we write, look: here we have such a thing as a vector, it contains two values of some kind. For some specific purpose we can use this vector.
Next, we add some calculations using the previous example and so on and so on.

[pollyvolk]

I totally agree. I read first two examples and felt demotivated, because I coud not understand several constructs in them. The syntax is too specific, so it is hard to make sense of some features even logically.