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.