title: Performance difference between a regular string and template string?
body: <p>I am now using ESLint <a href="http://eslint.org/docs/rules/prefer-template" rel="nofollow">prefer-template</a> to force myself use <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/template_strings" rel="nofollow">template strings</a> instead of string concatenation.</p>
  
  <p>This made me think whether there is ever a need to use regular string over the template string format, e.g.</p>
  
  
  
  <pre class="lang-js prettyprint-override"><code>console.log('Why use this? It requires me to escape different quotes depending on the context. In this case  \'.');
  console.log(`When I can use this. It allows me to use all types of quotes (e.g. ', ") without ever worrying about escaping them.`);
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>I realise that JSPerf is not ideal profiling tool, though at least in the case of a static string, I cannot observe any performance penalty, e.g. <a href="http://jsperf.com/es-string-vs-template" rel="nofollow">http://jsperf.com/es-string-vs-template</a>.</p>