For what it's worth, Mozilla was nearly killed at least twice by code quality.
Once upon startup. The code inherited from Netscape was... let's say charitably difficult to maintain. Turning it into something that could actually be improved upon and tested took years without any release of the Mozilla Suite.
Once when Chrome emerged. Not because the code was particularly bad, but because its architecture didn't reflect more modern requirements in terms of responsiveness or security. See https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo... for a few more details.
> For what it's worth, Mozilla was nearly killed at least twice by code quality.
> That’s not to say that I now think that “High quality good! Low quality better!”.
> As many commenters on Cupać’s post observed, while high quality isn’t necessary for success, it improves the chances of it.
_Nearly_ killed. But Mozilla is still kicking around. Maybe not doing the kind of internet-shaping work they once did (here's hoping they get back there), but they continue to exist.
Once upon startup. The code inherited from Netscape was... let's say charitably difficult to maintain. Turning it into something that could actually be improved upon and tested took years without any release of the Mozilla Suite.
Once when Chrome emerged. Not because the code was particularly bad, but because its architecture didn't reflect more modern requirements in terms of responsiveness or security. See https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo... for a few more details.