I'm not arguing that associative array is a particularly good term. Just that it is a very widely used and accepted term. I think you accept that point. And I accept yours that "associative array" can cause some people to associate confusing things about arrays.

If we're looking for alternatives I don't like "map" because it has too many other meanings. "Dictionary" strikes me as better. "Associative container" is too wordy ("associative array" has the same problem), but is used for this exact purpose in the C++ STL library. If we're going to make up a term, "association" is not bad.

However multiple language communities already call them "associative arrays" (and then usually call them something shorter in daily use), and we're not going to change that.

And a random note. If I tie a Perl hash to a DB_File DB_BTREE file, in what sense do I now have a hash? The tie interface really exposes the fact that we've got an abstract datatype, and the implementation it is tied to there has absolutely nothing to do with hash functions. That's what I mean when I say that the common term specifies an implementation too closely.