What is the purpose of having both NSMutableString and NSString?

Question

Why does Objective C provide both class NSString and subclass NSMutableString rather than just provide NSMutableString? Isn\'t a NSString equivalent to \"const NSMutableStr

Answer 1

It is very possible, and even likely, that there are optimizations in place that are only allowed when strings are immutable.

In fact running

NSString *A = @"Bob";
NSString *B = @"Bob";

in the debugger immediately shows that they are both pointers to the same string. In fact

NSString *C = [NSString stringWithString:@"Bob"];
NSString *D = [A copy];

both point to the same memory address as well. Meanwhile

NSString *E = [NSMutableString stringWithString:@"Bob"];

points to a different string.

So yes, using NSStrings are more efficient in some cases. And in general cocoa lends itself to returning a new copy of a string rather than an edited one. However, I can't really argue that you shouldn't use a mutable string everywhere, but it does seem to go against the general guidelines for the framework.

In my own work I tend to only use mutable variants where I need to edit things directly. It's just a little backwards from the C/C++ style of everything mutable unless you need a const, everything is const unless you need mutability.