As a researcher working on experimental PLs [1]...why not

[1] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/smcdirm/liveprogr...

You appear to be advocating a new:
[ ] functional [X] imperative [X] object-oriented [X] procedural [ ] stack-based
[ ] "multi-paradigm" [ ] lazy [ ] eager [X] statically-typed [ ] dynamically-typed
[ ] pure [X] impure [ ] non-hygienic [ ] visual [ ] beginner-friendly

You appear to believe that:
[X] Garbage collection is free [X] Computers have infinite memory
[ ] Nobody really needs:
[ ] concurrency [X] a REPL [ ] debugger support [ ] IDE support [ ] I/O
[ ] to interact with code not written in your language
[X] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy
[X] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
[X] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

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

The following philosophical objections apply:
[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"
[X] The implementation is closed-source [X] covered by patents [X] not owned by you
[?] Your type system is unsound
[X] ____________________________ takes exponential time
[X] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable

Your implementation has the following flaws:
[X] CPUs do not work that way
[X] RAM does not work that way
[X] VMs do not work that way
[X] Compilers do not work that way
[X] Compilers cannot work that way
[X] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
[X] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
[X] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
[X] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
[X] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming

Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:
[X] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
[X] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
[ ] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
[X] assembly [X] C [X] FORTRAN [X] Java [X] Ruby [ ] Prolog
[X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
[X] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
[ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
[X] Rejection of basic computer science without justification

Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
[X] We already have an unsafe imperative language
[X] We already have a safe imperative OO language

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