How is it more efficient than C++?
I mean the coding process is much more efficient in BMX, not the code execution. Compare the sources for win32maxgui (C++) and win32maxguiex (BMX). The BMX version is much simpler and easier to edit, yet they do the same exact thing.
I don't really care about any of BMX's default libraries. Most of them are very basic and lack important functionality, like the sound module has no 3D spatialization. I think the cross-platform attempt of the modules compromises their features, and it all seems like a huge drag for one person to maintain.
I am more interested in BMX the language. I'd be happier if BMX added multithreading and dropped all the default libraries, since I usually replace them with third-party libs from SourceForge. I mean, just about every kind of library already exists as a C++ lib that can be easily imported, so why keep reinventing the wheel? What Mark should do is send modules of different libraries to the authors, to be included in the distribution. When Khronos releases an OpenGL3 header, they should include a BMX module with it.
Outsourcing MaxGUI was a good move. It doesn't make sense for Mark to be wasting time writing modules when they usually get replaced by something better. He's the only person who can tend to the BMX core, and I wish he would stick to that.
Regarding Max3D, I don't worry about competition, because our primary market is C++ programmers, and about half our BMX users only bought BMX after getting our engine. So I would like to think my opinion is unbiased.