I once built a stupid language for fun. Think a bastard child of FORTH and brainfuck, but in two dimensions. To give an idea of how stupid it was, I will fill this in.

You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional [X] imperative [ ] object-oriented [X] procedural [X] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [X] eager [ ] statically-typed [X] dynamically-typed
[ ] pure [ ] impure [ ] non-hygienic [X] visual [ ] beginner-friendly
[X] non-programmer-friendly [X] 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
[ ] Garbage collection is free [ ] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
[X] concurrency [X] a REPL [X] debugger support [X] IDE support [ ] I/O
[X] to interact with code not written in your language
[ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
[ ] 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
[X] "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
[ ] No language spec
[ ] "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
[X] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
[X] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
[ ] 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
[X] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
[X] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
[X] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
[X] 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
[X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
[X] assembly [X] C [X] FORTRAN [X] Java [X] Ruby [X] Prolog
[X] 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:
[X] Your complex sample code would be one line in: almost anything, actually
[ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[ ] 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.
[X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.

In fact, it was so magnificently stupid that when I described it on a forum I frequent, one of the administrator considered banning me because I obviously deserved it if I would invent something that deranged.