Is this switch because you've moved on to LISPs?
Doesn't startup time and lag of emacs (compared to vim) bother you?
As to your question about Lisp, it definitely was a huge draw to Emacs because I fell in love with Lisp and almost the entire ecosystem of Emacs is written in Lisp... and I'd certainly much rather program in Lisp than vimscript, or even Python (or any of the other more mainstream languages).
I remember coming across various things I wanted to do in vim that were pretty awkward to do because of how clunky vim and vimscript were. Lisp and Emacs just made doing what I needed much easier overall (though some things were still easier in vim.. for example, vim has some powerful features in its regex engine that don't exist in Emacs, even when using Evil). This was before neovim, so maybe it's better there, though since both vim and neovim lack Emacs' Lisp ecosystem, I doubt they'll ever be able to match Emacs in this respect.
There were a lot of other reasons for the switch to Emacs, like having deep web browser and shell integration, being able to read my email from within Emacs, and do a ton of other things from it.. org-mode was another draw.
When people talk about "composability" and "integration" of EMACS, it strikes to me that, vim+i3+unix setup is essentially the same. Just instead of LISP, bash/python is the glue language.
Vim, on the other hand, appears to conspire against the user's attempts to build reusable configurations. One plugin may require Neovim. Another may require the Python runtime to be configured and installed. Vanishingly few of them have built in keybinds, and those that do are not guaranteed to be harmonious with other plugins. And besides, should I write my config in vimscript or Lua?
It might sound like I'm picking nits, but I don't find it coincidental that the best configurations that people have managed to build have been upon the strong bones that Emacs provides. Doom Emacs (https://github.com/doomemacs/doomemacs) is best-in-class, providing harmony between all of the built in modules and their bindings. I uncomment a line in a config file and get full Python support, with refactoring and formatting and such, ootb. This ends up being true for a shockingly long list of languages and tools.
On the Vim side you have https://github.com/NvChad/NvChad which appears to no longer be accepting new plugins and https://github.com/LunarVim/LunarVim which appears to provide a really good programming experience but is limited in scope to a handful of core plugins and whichever LSP servers they can get their hands on.
I used to use Neovim and compose everything together by hand as well. I don't see why I should bother today when Doom Emacs provides the same experience I would have built for myself, out of the box.
The downside of autoloading (lazy loading) all libraries is that there's a hitch when I first open a "heavy" elisp library. A PDF, an org mode document or something that launches an LSP server, say. But if I launch emacs to edit a bash script or a config file the speed is indistinguishable from vim.
That's how I have it configured.
You're basically giving up almost everything that makes Emacs great: its ecosystem. Bare-bones, default, vanilla Emacs, without any packages or configuration is woefully underpowered compared to Emacs or vim with lots of packages and configuration. I hate to use either in their default states, and would have never switched to Emacs if I wasn't able to use Evil.
So I get the best of both worlds: Emacs+Evil 99% of the time, and vim/vi 1% of the time when Emacs+Evil is not available.
Starts in under one second for me.
It's funny Arthur Conan Doyle says Sherlock Holmes is based on I think two guys, but there's a third guy he's also based on Conan Doyle didn't talk about, and that was the guy who cracked cases the hardest, just never talked about because of he was the one the whole coke-injection trances was based on (which was legal at the time). Protected his privacy, you understand.
Kind of like Paul Erdos.