Just wanted to capture the advantages of CUA mode over the usual emacs copy and paste commands. One advantage which is quite obvious is it similar to the keybindings which are present in other editors. What would a more better explanation on using CUA mode in emacs.

  • If you're comfortable with the standard bindings, stick with them. cua-selection-mode may still be of interest, though. – phils Dec 4 '14 at 10:38
  • This question, as currently posed, is not well-suited to this site because it will elicit answers that are primarily opinion-based. Could you please edit the question to conform to site guidelines more closely? – Dan Dec 4 '14 at 13:02

I suppose that I can give a silly answer to a silly question.

  • "Is French language good over German?"

Well, French it's a bit better if you're French, but then German is better for Germans. Neither are my mother tongue, but I like both, French maybe more.

Same thing for CUA: it's familiar to you if you're a die-hard Windows user, and therefore maybe better. But Emacs bindings are more familiar if you're using bash.

Personally, I'd never give up scroll-up-command on C-v.

  • s/bash/readline – Squidly Dec 4 '14 at 10:42
  • you are correct, but my question was not to challenge the capabilities presented with any bindings, but in what ways it is good compared to the usual emacs modes. Few of them are: In CUA mode 'C-x', 'C-c', 'C-v', and 'C-z' invoke commands that cut (kill), copy, paste(yank), and undo respectively. The 'C-x' and 'C-c' work only on the active regions. Otherwise they still act as the prefix keys and the standard emacs commands like 'C-x C-c' still works. It has better support for rectangular-region, and moreover if you want to use C-v from scroll up, you can still use adding Shift to it as S-C-v. – OmPS Dec 4 '14 at 10:48

The answers to this question will be highly subjective. The following is obviously my own opinion, and different opinions are certainly possible.

The reason the CUA commands are desirable is because of familiarity, not because there is some inherent superiority of C-x over C-w (etc.). Muscle memory is important for editor interaction, and if you are very used to the standard keys, cua-mode might make life easier for you.

On the other hand, cua-mode, even in its limited form with the keys only working with an active region, interferes with a number of Emacs commands. For example, rectangle commands (C-x r) will not be available anymore without deactivating the region first, same as narrow-to-region (C-x n n), and a few other commands, in addition to whatever commands your current mode includes under the C-c prefix that act special for an active region (e.g. Elpy will send the current region to a subprocess on C-c C-c if one is active).

So this is a question of very personal advantages and disadvantages. The main reason for using cua-mode is familiarity with the standard bindings. This is useful for people who are new to or rarely use Emacs, but I do not think that learning the slightly different bindings is particularly problematic. On the other hand, if you intend to use Emacs a lot, cua-mode will more often than not stand in your way.

(In general, I would love if Emacs would use the standard bindings. But I do not hold any delusions about the feasibility of that happening. Emacs predates those bindings, and the assumptions about key bindings are deeply ingrained in Emacs and the extensions. For example, almost every mode assumes that mode maps are on C-c.)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.