Is `Technology´ a second order term in reuse´s success equation?

Good technology should make a difference where it counts-in the market place, but I have noticed an interesting phenomenon. The goodness of technology does not make much of a difference, at least in the short term. Measured by the market place, Visual Basic´s VBX componentry is a wildly successful example of reuse. While the Visual Basic System itself is quite an elegant system and the interface to VBX components is clean and simple, the technology weakness of VBX components is the BASIC programming language. And yet, VBX components are a success by almost any measure. The biggest factor in their success seems to be that they solve real application problems with great ease, providing a great deal of programming leverage. On the other hand, looking at object oriented programming (OOP) languages I see a lot of pretty elegant technology. On the whole, OOP is a powerful and elegant technology. But measured by the VBX componentry available, OOP´s componentry is pretty weak. Much as we might like to believe that OOP or VBX technology is a revolutionary paradigm shift, they probably are not. And thus, they are probably second order terms in the equation that determines success. They succeed or fail for other reasons-first order reasons. VBX components succeed largely because they were born in the mainstream of the desktop revolution. Likewise, OOP is a small technological delta that is somewhat out of the mainstream of this revolution and to the degree that it is, it seems to be a less than stellar example of reuse success