One of the frequently overlooked benefits of Lisp is that the culture around Lisp actively promotes software that is /supposed/ to be extended by its user and sort of grow into the user, rather than the user growing into it.
There is also a huge difference between "building an extension" and "extending the actual code that is the running process." In Emacs, one can redefine one of its core functions at the push of a button, and suddenly all new calls will call your version of the function. If your redefined function has a breakpoint in it, you'll be able to debug-step into the core of the editor as it is running.
Not sure how well TypeScript in VS Code works in that regard.
I've found that I prefer a very nice, coherent design by someone who spent a lot of time thinking about the problem in a holistic manner, than tinkering with stuff. And I do/did tinker a lot.
IMO that's the best design: a solid, coherent design with clear extension points.
Of course, I'm the Anti-Emacs by saying this :)
Philosophically Lisp may be superior, but I'm not sure it's so clear cut in real life.
Regarding most of the features you present, a good chunk of them aren't editing features and another chunk are related to running in a limited environment (the terminal). So a big part of them aren't as strong selling points as you seem to think they are, since many people don't care about them.