> Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION."

> Understanding the runes of Perl and the difference between a "$" and a "@" etc are a lot more exotic than "ADD A TO B GIVING C." or "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." I disagree. "$" is understandable for just about every 2 year old on the planet[1] and understood by just about every developer on the planet, including the majority for whom English is not their first language. ("IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"? Why would you divide your name?) "@" is understandable for a 6 year old.[2] Calling such incredibly simple things "runes" and "exotic" is like calling "0" an exotic rune.[2] [1] "$" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying S for "Single" and I for "Item". According to replicated scientific studies an average English baby demonstrates understanding of this concept at around 22-24 months. I think a conclusion that a 2 year old could understand "$" is reasonable. [2] "@" is just a visual/audio/semantic/mnemonic/symbol overlaying "at" to indicate indexing, "a" to indicate "array", and "0" to indicate counting starts at zero. According to a 2018 scientific study[3] an average child has come to understand integer counting by the age of around 3 and a half, and is comfortable with counting from "0" at around 5-6 years of age. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the notion of an "array"; but the whole point of having an "@" is to distinguish it from "$" without getting into details. I think a conclusion that a 6 year old could understand "@" more easily than they could understand addition is reasonable.