[j-nsp] MX104 capabilities question

Saku Ytti saku at ytti.fi
Wed Jun 22 08:51:37 EDT 2016

On 22 June 2016 at 10:41, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>>> Can you expand on what you mean by the following quote: "I think they are
>>> fundamentally able to produce less buggy code than
>>> JNPR or CSCO.
> yeah if there's any fundamental about it, it's that it carry less
> legacy, is more general purpose, and has less hardware, wierd corner
> cases and unreasonable customer demands to support. It has it share of
> bugs, missing features and hardware specific limitations and quirks.

This comment was specifically about how they write the software. I
don't believe market has enough skilled labour to write any
significant SLOC on C. I think use of C puts any company in
disadvantage due to the cost of introducing bugs.

Arista, as I understand it, does not use C, but code is predominantly
C++, and even for that, good portions of the C++ code are generated
from higher level internal language.

Combine these, and I think it makes Arista fundamentally more able to
produce better software. You don't have better people than your
competitors, that's very risky way to look at things, but you can
choose your tools. I think Arista has chosen better, they don't need
better people to be better.


More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list