Sure, loosely speaking it evolved into web apps as they are today, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same things. Cars are different from horse-and-carts, electric cars are different from ICE cars. I maintain what I said: web apps today are unrecognisably different from DHTML. The term “DHTML” froze in meaning and scope quite early on, and faded from use over the course of several years; and lingering uses of the term over subsequent years were very dominantly of that early scope and meaning—hence I say it froze.
(I don’t feel ActiveX, applets or Flash were ever part of the meaning of DHTML. JavaScript/JScript/VBScript, absolutely. But these others had their own drawing areas and typically didn’t interact with the HTML DOM. They were just embedded alternate worlds, not DHTML.)
I think it's just semantics, but what I found incorrect was saying that DHTML was just little snippets – that entirely depends on the use, I remember entire websites written with DHTML that were cutting edge at the time.
For me the reason to include ActiveX is because it came bundled with the web browser (IE) while for Flash you had to install the Macromedia plugin. Also, while Flash probably could interact with the DOM I personally almost never saw it done; I definitely remember ActiveX controls that would interface with the DOM, used almost in the way React and co are these days (!)
(I don’t feel ActiveX, applets or Flash were ever part of the meaning of DHTML. JavaScript/JScript/VBScript, absolutely. But these others had their own drawing areas and typically didn’t interact with the HTML DOM. They were just embedded alternate worlds, not DHTML.)