Not using lisp
I don't like those languages, and I have just as much right to say that as the people who don't like Lisp.
- What? Okay, so fruits, berries?
- No, no, no fruits either.
- Hmm... what about croutons, nuts, maybe sunflower seeds?
- No, just use meat. I like meat. Just make it with a bunch of meat pieces, alright?
- Well, that is not a salad...
> Not using lisp
Don't you folks realize the imbecility of such statements? Emacs is a Lisp machine that allows writing and loading custom extensions based on Lisp! This level of extensibility and programmability is so deeply ingrained into Emacs, specifically because it revolves around Lisp. Emacs wouldn't be possible without Lisp.
I sometimes think using lisp for a language is a little like trying to implement comments within json data.
Emacs just cannot be Emacs without Lisp. Emacs is a Lisp machine; it is tightly integrated with Lisp and needs Lisp to operate. Lisp is at its core principal model.
There are a number of different types of applications that are significantly more difficult to achieve with a non-homoiconic language; check out Hyperfiddle/Electric, there are some videos with demos. Why do you think there were so many attempts to re-create something like Org-mode, yet none of them were hugely successful?
For starters - the Lisp REPL has some significant differences; it just doesn't work the same way as a REPL in, e.g., Python. In Lisp, you can send any piece of code without any prelude or ceremony directly to the REPL. That REPL instance can even be on some remote computer, like a spacecraft millions of miles away (I'm not making up this shit, NASA did it at some point)
Anyway, Emacs is Emacs because of Lisp, not because someone on a whim decided to use Lisp instead of, I dunno, Pascal. Trying to build Emacs on top of some non-Lispy language is futile. It won't be Emacs. Sure, it might be to a certain degree even better, but it won't be even "like Emacs".