I addressed all those points in my post, some implicitly and some explicitly, did you read the whole thing? I really don't think it was too long for you to read...
Which post? Is the original articles yours? It doesn't mention anything I complained about. I don't see anything about the crashes, the bad performance, the bugs, the incomplete documentation, the design problems with the significant whitespace and unnamed values stored on output ports. I'm confused by what you've said.
Edit: I think you just meant your comment. I don't really see those things mentioned there, either.
My post implicitly addresses those things, hence my comparison to C++ and my complaints about it. It seems like you only read "Max and Max for Live are great" and got upset. Please read my posts more charitably in the future. It's fine for you to add extra information, but you must do so in the context of agreeing with me, not disagreeing. It is rude to be like "how is what you said true? I'm going to repeat what you said back at you"
What? I never disagreed with you, except for your opening statement of "Max and Max for Live are great," which you provide no further reasoning for in your comment. And I agree with most of the rest of your comment.
If you can realize that your opening statement was a 'backhanded-compliment' towards MAX, you would see that you both functionally said the same thing.
"It's great, but..." and "Is it great?" both convey the message that MAX gets a lot of praise/recognition that maybe isn't deserved or warranted, at least anymore. They're much more in agreement than disagreement when taken full context.
Edit: I think you just meant your comment. I don't really see those things mentioned there, either.