Now, the main point of this toy language as you call it is to demonstrate that a dynamic language can be fast if you don't design it with an interpreter in mind. BTW, I really hope that this is what Dart is.
Rémi
I disagree. How are webprogramming skills applicable to writing a HTTP server? Seems to me the relevant skill would be network programming and my (admittedly limited) web developing experience leads me to believe the skills are mostly if not completely disjoint...
Writing robust high-load network servers is actually a little tougher than it seems, and the skillset has very little overlap with the "designing a nice language" skillset, or the "making an efficient compiler" skillset. And not only is robustness is important, but to be useful it probably needs a lot of auxiliary features like HTTPS and authentication and logging and FSM-knows-what-all (this point, on which features matter, is the only place that web-programming experience might actually be relevant). And so tacking a half-assed HTTP server onto your new-language project is, well, half-assed. And IMO, there are enough shitty toy web-servers out there already.
But your argument for the name is so utterly broken.
First of all, having a PhD in CS and introducing 3 security holes is no reason to blame the language. It's not even necessarily a reason to blame yourself. Since when is a PhD in CS supposed to make you a good software engineer? If it is, I know a lot of PhDs who got a raw deal.
Second, how does your language fix the three security bugs you introduced? The only security feature I see in your highlights list is "secure by default: no eval, no magic quotes/string interpolation". 99 out of 100 competent PHP programmers force magic quotes off (so if your brother didn't, he can shut up), and most bugs that can be introduced with string interpolation can be (and usually are) introduced with string concatenation (which I assume you can still do).
Third, the main thing you demonstrated with this story (as others have said) is that you aren't very good with PHP. That's no big shame, but it's also not a reason you "own the right to call this language PHP.reboot". This reasoning is crazyface.
Fourth, as others have said, calling it "PHP.reboot" just confines it to the ghetto. If it were to grow, people wouldn't be able to search for articles/blogs/forums/help/mail/etc about it without getting lost in the PHP (even admitting that for me googling "php reboot" does return your google-code repo). And right in the name it says "I'm the wanna-be little brother of the big successful language". Although I don't think this last criticism is a problem, because I assume the goal was not to actually replace PHP, because that's impossible for reasons others have mentioned. So, no big deal.
The GOOD argument for the name is "It's just a toy language, so it doesn't matter what it's called, and rebooting PHP was my motivator when I started this particular project."
Oh, and as an aside, if one page of PHP is your web programming experience, then you really should probably not be shipping an HTTP server.