> Which begs my question: If you already have more exact words (”private“, ”shared“) for these concept, why not use them? Yes, ”my“ and “our” have these connotation too, but it works only for humans and their relations.
It works on items to denote their relationship to people. That Perl expects the code to be written by a person and uses terms people are used to for dealing with ownership doesn't seem weird to me. That you see it as weird and other words as more appropriate I think is more likely related to what words you learned first for those concepts. I don't see them as inherently superior in any way.
> I guess that's my disquiet with some of these names: Perl mixes the realms of machines and humans.
Given that it's creator is a linguist, and there's some very specific things that were attempted, your feeling that it's taking terms you associate with relation and using them somewhere else is probably purposeful. Perl was designed with some very specific ideas, and one of them was to make it usable in a way more like a natural language.
> And the anthropomorphization of abstract concepts only creates a slightly uncanny valley in my mind.
I think you're stretching your analogy too far to make a point. My and our denote ownership of an item. It's used in Perl to denote something very similar, as the core concepts are the same, responsibility and access.
> Maybe because english isn't my mother tongue. Perhaps native speaker is more ok with this mixture of concepts?
Possibly. I'm a native speaker and the concepts aren't mixed in my mind.
It works on items to denote their relationship to people. That Perl expects the code to be written by a person and uses terms people are used to for dealing with ownership doesn't seem weird to me. That you see it as weird and other words as more appropriate I think is more likely related to what words you learned first for those concepts. I don't see them as inherently superior in any way.
> I guess that's my disquiet with some of these names: Perl mixes the realms of machines and humans.
Given that it's creator is a linguist, and there's some very specific things that were attempted, your feeling that it's taking terms you associate with relation and using them somewhere else is probably purposeful. Perl was designed with some very specific ideas, and one of them was to make it usable in a way more like a natural language.
> And the anthropomorphization of abstract concepts only creates a slightly uncanny valley in my mind.
I think you're stretching your analogy too far to make a point. My and our denote ownership of an item. It's used in Perl to denote something very similar, as the core concepts are the same, responsibility and access.
> Maybe because english isn't my mother tongue. Perhaps native speaker is more ok with this mixture of concepts?
Possibly. I'm a native speaker and the concepts aren't mixed in my mind.