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.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…