A footnote to those interested: REBOL never really made it because it was closed source and cost some $ back when Perl was super popular even though the language had some amazing DSLs. Making a GUI is a built in one-liner. It was also slow (only interpreted). Red is that language, plus ability to JIT, and do native code. You can mix and match native and interpreted code too. Use types when and where you want. It has no installation. Just an exe that is a few MB. It can create super tiny executables too. I cannot wait for it to get to 1.0.

Rebol and Red are both interesting to me for their given purposes. My desires for a language are somewhat self-contradicting.

On one hand, I want a language as simple as possible, with as few paradigms as possible, and as close to the metal as possible (or at least the ability to compile it down to something with C-equivalent performance). This would encompass the core of the language.

On the other hand, the language would have a wide variety of built-in libraries for UI, access to graphics hardware, networking, input, etc. The language's paradigms would also be easily extensible, perhaps as an added layer of compilation / meta programming.

Take a look at http://terralang.org (low-level) and http://ebblang.org (DSL), both related to Lua, via meta-programming and LLVM.

I've toyed with both languages, and they are only slightly off from something I have been looking for. One of my pet projects right now is a language that can be compiled to and/or simultaneously interpreted within C++, with minimal overhead or dependencies (just a small single header file). No need for LLVM, although I debated using it myself.