I'm working on a little object-oriented scripting language:

You appear to be advocating a new:
[X] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [ ] procedural [ ] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [X] eager [ ] statically-typed [X] dynamically-typed
[ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly
[ ] non-programmer-friendly [ ] completely incomprehensible
programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work.

You appear to believe that:
[ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult
[X] Garbage collection is free [X] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
[ ] concurrency [ ] a REPL [X] debugger support [X] IDE support [ ] I/O
[ ] to interact with code not written in your language
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
[X] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy
[ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
[ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate
[ ] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them
[ ] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):
[+] comprehensible syntax [-] semicolons [-] significant whitespace [-] macros
[-] implicit type conversion [+] explicit casting [-] type inference
[-] goto [-] exceptions [+] closures [ ] tail recursion [+] coroutines
[+] reflection [+] subtyping [-] multiple inheritance [+] operator overloading
[ ] algebraic datatypes [ ] recursive types [ ] polymorphic types
[ ] covariant array typing [ ] monads [ ] dependent types
[+] infix operators [+] nested comments [ ] multi-line strings [ ] regexes
[ ] call-by-value [ ] call-by-name [+] call-by-reference [ ] call-cc

The following philosophical objections apply:
[ ] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
[ ] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
[ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
[X] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
[X] No language spec
[X] "The implementation is the spec"
[ ] The implementation is closed-source [ ] covered by patents [ ] not owned by you
[ ] Your type system is unsound [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed
[ ] a proof of same is attached
[ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler
[ ] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
[X] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
[X] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
[ ] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete
[ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible
[ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language
[ ] ____________________________ takes exponential time
[ ] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable

Your implementation has the following flaws:
[ ] CPUs do not work that way
[ ] RAM does not work that way
[ ] VMs do not work that way
[ ] Compilers do not work that way
[ ] Compilers cannot work that way
[ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()
[X] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
[ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
[ ] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
[ ] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
[ ] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
[ ] The VM crashes if you look at it funny
[X] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
[ ] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming
[ ] You don't seem to understand pointers
[ ] You don't seem to understand functions

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:
[ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
[ ] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
[ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks
[ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls
handwritten assembly through your FFI
[ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE
[ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
[ ] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
[X] assembly [X] C [X] FORTRAN [X] Java [ ] Ruby [ ] Prolog
[ ] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
[ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
[ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
[ ] Rejection of basic computer science without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
[ ] Your complex sample code would be one line in: _______________________
[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[X] We already have a safe imperative OO language
[ ] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language
[ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
[ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
[ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
[ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
[ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
[ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
[X] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
[ ] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.