3 ms·
Why die, vim is thriving and in a much better shape than CUA(I wont repeat myself). And no, there is no standard for CUA, only very loose conventions which are
by lycopodiopsida 3y ago
Why die, vim is thriving and in a much better shape than CUA(I wont repeat myself). And no, there is no standard for CUA, only very loose conventions which are largely inconsistent. On macos in editors and text entry fields I have a better luck with readline keybindings than with CUA and it says a lot about how much of a “standard” it is.
So, why again should emacs care about it? There is no heresy, vim and emacs gurus just do not care, this ship has sailed long time ago. Today across every editor I have used in past 20 years (vim, Idea, emacs, VSCode) and across 3 operating systems vim keybindings are the most consistent thing. CUA is laughable, not only does the overlap not allow to work with text effectively, it is also completely inconsistent, such as usage of cmd as modificator in macos. You may stomp with your feet about it, but people will not care more. If anything, these highly specialized editors in their niches will survive any mouse-driven fad (and let is be honest here, CUA-influenced editors are all mouse-driven). So, go emacs, go vim, you are doing everything right.