Impossible to comment on the specifics of what you're saying - although I do have some opinions on Max 6 stability - but I thought I might let you know that it is, indeed, possible to communicate directly to a [receive] object from within mxj. Try the MaxSystem.sendMessageToBoundObject() method.

From the javadoc:

This method provides and easy way for mxj objects to communicate with other max objects or libraries written in C by passing messages. Objects must be bound to the s_thing of a global symbol generated via a call to gensym. Messages cannot be declared as A_CANT since typedmess is used for the dispatching. Returns true on success, false otherwise. IN C:

void main(void) { ...blah addmess((method)my_obj_setstate, "setstate", A_GIMME, 0) ..blah }

t_my_obj *x; blah blah... gensym("__my_special_lib__")->s_thing = (t_object *)x;

IN JAVA:

private static final String LIBNAME = "__my_special_lib__"; private static final int STATE_INIT = 0; private static final int STATE_ACTIVE = 1;

blah blah..

public void setBackendState() { Atom[] args = new Atom[1]; args[0]= Atom.newAtom(STATE_INIT); boolean res = MaxSystem.sendMessageToBoundObject(LIBNAME,"setstate",args); ... }

Args can be null if message takes no arguments.

Parameters: sym_name - the symbol to which the object is bound msg - the message to pass args - arguments to pass with the message Returns: true if message was sent successfully.

Software comes with bugs. They get fixed when users report them. You don't wanna know how many I reported. Even the hugest companies can't deliver 100% bug free programs. That's just the nature of it.

If you wanna be in full control, not having to wait for C74 to fix things, than yes, you should develop your own tools from the ground up (though you might still encounter compiler bugs...). As you already stated, that opens up a whole new can of worms when you're not a hardcore coding ninja. But for large projects with sufficient funding and expertise it can make sense.

That being said, I do develop sizable applications with Max that go well beyond your average MSP synth or cam tracking patch. It's got its quirks and I need to find my workarounds from time to time, but it works for me.

Btw, how many developer hours does $2000 cover? I'm afraid not very much compared to the hours that go into developing a massive tool like Max.

but I thought I might let you know that it is, indeed, possible to communicate directly to a [receive] object from within mxj. Try the MaxSystem.sendMessageToBoundObject() method.

This method does work as you describe, but it is not useful if you have to send many messages frequently are are concerned about performance (it will be much slower than some of the overloaded outlet(…) methods).

In general, any of the methods that send stuff across the JNI as Java Atom will be slow as you are sending references to Java objects that require another cross of the JNI barrier to inspect these objects for their values. Also, compared to sending a message followed by an array out an outlet, this method passes an extra string as the name of the bound object and this—or really any strings you send across the JNI—must be converted to a symbol with a call to gensym(C74_CONST char *s) (this function is not very fast). So if performance is concerned, the combination of sending an array of Atom across the JNI and an extra symbol to generate makes this method not an option compared to using an overloaded outlet(…) method.