IMO there are far better options for realtime code-generated music. Max does what it does well, and shoehorning in interrupt level scheduling for scripting on top is out of scope for its remit.

This is not strictly true, and Max for Live (M4L) is much more than a pseudo-VST. In the context of Live, the Max runtime is controlled by the DAW, which itself then exposes part of its interface to Max. So there's realtime bi-directional communication going on, more akin to how Propellerhead Software's (now deprecated) ReWire protocol used to work, the host passing control information (transport position, note data, etc.) and audio buffers into the client software and vice-versa. There is some superficial similarity with VST in this sense, but with M4L it's much more deeply integrated into the DAW as a whole. The Live Object Model[1], while not complete, is extensive, and there is very little that is off-limits to a M4L device to manipulate, with the caveat that care must be taken to avoid overflow of the control stream coming back from Max into Live (certain operations must be placed in the low-priority scheduler thread).

This new API gives much of the same control that M4L already did, but without having to have Max involved.

>In Max, you have to build everything from scratch, every time.

Again, not strictly true. Editing a M4L device opens the full Max environment, which has a snippets[2] feature much like any other good IDE. You can easily build a large library of boilerplate code for your own specific purposes with it. There are also many basic examples included out of the box.

[1] https://docs.cycling74.com/apiref/lom/

[2] https://docs.cycling74.com/userguide/snippets/

You can see this 'bare-bones' style of Max with Miller Puckette's continuation of his original work in Pure Data[1] (aka Pd). The nice thing about Pd is that it's open source, so all the scheduling and signal flow logic can be examined and understood. As I understand it, the basics of Pd are comparable to how Max still works under the hood, though no doubt there has been some deviation over the years.

As it is now, Max offers a very smooth interface to the basic paradigm that was established 40 years ago, with many modern advances, but the fundamental idea hasn't changed all that much since it first came out.

If you really hate having to work through a GUI for computer music there's always SuperCollider[2] and its many derivatives (Sonic Pi, TidalCycles, etc.). It's nice to have options!

[1] https://msp.ucsd.edu/software.html

[2] https://supercollider.github.io/

Have a dig around here: https://docs.cycling74.com/apiref/js/

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-th...

I wonder how one is supposed to exercise intent when the tool in question is specifically designed with the purpose of removing your ability to have direct influence on the result it produces. At best we get curation/collage, which in itself is no big change from the way things have been for decades (sample packs, premade loops, and going back further, sample CDs, for instance), but what goes away is the human touch.

There's a difference between technology/technique that adds a new sonic palette to the canon, and one that takes away the necessity to have any direct input in the process of production. I guess we'll find out which this is if there's a wave of novel AI assisted genres that emerge, or not, as may be the case.

* I suppose in the early days, running on an mainframe would belie the definition of ownership per se, as it required access and was limited to that specific machine/institution, but then we are talking about a time where personal computing wasn't available.

[1] http://www.computermusicjournal.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Emily_Howell

[3] http://autechre.ws/

Addendum: I would highly recommend the Margaret Boden book referenced in the wiki on David Cope/Emily Howell, which is an absolutely fascinating read and was incredibly far-sighted in its enquiries on this topic.