Develop Reference

single quotations vs double quotations [duplicate]

Consider the following two alternatives:
console.log("double");
console.log('single');
The former uses double quotes around the string, whereas the latter uses single quotes around the string.
I see more and more JavaScript libraries out there using single quotes when handling strings.
Are these two usages interchangeable? If not, is there an advantage in using one over the other?

The most likely reason for use of single vs. double in different libraries is programmer preference and/or API consistency. Other than being consistent, use whichever best suits the string.
Using the other type of quote as a literal:
alert('Say "Hello"');
alert("Say 'Hello'");
This can get complicated:
alert("It's \"game\" time.");
alert('It\'s "game" time.');
Another option, new in ECMAScript 6, is template literals which use the backtick character:
alert(`Use "double" and 'single' quotes in the same string`);
alert(`Escape the \` back-tick character and the \${ dollar-brace sequence in a string`);
Template literals offer a clean syntax for: variable interpolation, multi-line strings, and more.
Note that JSON is formally specified to use double quotes, which may be worth considering depending on system requirements.

If you're dealing with JSON, it should be noted that strictly speaking, JSON strings must be double quoted. Sure, many libraries support single quotes as well, but I had great problems in one of my projects before realizing that single quoting a string is in fact not according to JSON standards.

There is no one better solution; however, I would like to argue that double quotes may be more desirable at times:
Newcomers will already be familiar with double quotes from their language. In English, we must use double quotes " to identify a passage of quoted text. If we were to use a single quote ', the reader may misinterpret it as a contraction. The other meaning of a passage of text surrounded by the ' indicates the 'colloquial' meaning. It makes sense to stay consistent with pre-existing languages, and this may likely ease the learning and interpretation of code.
Double quotes eliminate the need to escape apostrophes (as in contractions). Consider the string: "I'm going to the mall", vs. the otherwise escaped version: 'I\'m going to the mall'.
Double quotes mean a string in many other languages. When you learn a new language like Java or C, double quotes are always used. In Ruby, PHP and Perl, single-quoted strings imply no backslash escapes while double quotes support them.
JSON notation is written with double quotes.
Nonetheless, as others have stated, it is most important to remain consistent.

Section 7.8.4 of the specification describes literal string notation. The only difference is that DoubleStringCharacter is "SourceCharacter but not double-quote" and SingleStringCharacter is "SourceCharacter but not single-quote". So the only difference can be demonstrated thusly:
'A string that\'s single quoted'
"A string that's double quoted"
So it depends on how much quote escaping you want to do. Obviously the same applies to double quotes in double quoted strings.

I'd like to say the difference is purely stylistic, but I'm really having my doubts. Consider the following example:
/*
Add trim() functionality to JavaScript...
1. By extending the String prototype
2. By creating a 'stand-alone' function
This is just to demonstrate results are the same in both cases.
*/
// Extend the String prototype with a trim() method
String.prototype.trim = function() {
return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, '');
};
// 'Stand-alone' trim() function
function trim(str) {
return str.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, '');
};
document.writeln(String.prototype.trim);
document.writeln(trim);
In Safari, Chrome, Opera, and Internet Explorer (tested in Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8), this will return the following:
function () {
return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, '');
}
function trim(str) {
return str.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, '');
}
However, Firefox will yield a slightly different result:
function () {
return this.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, "");
}
function trim(str) {
return str.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, "");
}
The single quotes have been replaced by double quotes. (Also note how the indenting space was replaced by four spaces.) This gives the impression that at least one browser parses JavaScript internally as if everything was written using double quotes. One might think, it takes Firefox less time to parse JavaScript if everything is already written according to this 'standard'.
Which, by the way, makes me a very sad panda, since I think single quotes look much nicer in code. Plus, in other programming languages, they're usually faster to use than double quotes, so it would only make sense if the same applied to JavaScript.
Conclusion: I think we need to do more research on this.
This might explain Peter-Paul Koch's test results from back in 2003.
It seems that single quotes are sometimes faster in Explorer Windows (roughly 1/3 of my tests did show a faster response time), but if Mozilla shows a difference at all, it handles double quotes slightly faster. I found no difference at all in Opera.
2014: Modern versions of Firefox/Spidermonkey don’t do this anymore.

If you're doing inline JavaScript (arguably a "bad" thing, but avoiding that discussion) single quotes are your only option for string literals, I believe.
E.g., this works fine:
<a onclick="alert('hi');">hi</a>
But you can't wrap the "hi" in double quotes, via any escaping method I'm aware of. Even " which would have been my best guess (since you're escaping quotes in an attribute value of HTML) doesn't work for me in Firefox. " won't work either because at this point you're escaping for HTML, not JavaScript.
So, if the name of the game is consistency, and you're going to do some inline JavaScript in parts of your application, I think single quotes are the winner. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Technically there's no difference. It's only matter of style and convention.
Douglas Crockford1 recommends using double quotes.
I personally follow that.

Strictly speaking, there is no difference in meaning; so the choice comes down to convenience.
Here are several factors that could influence your choice:
House style: Some groups of developers already use one convention or the other.
Client-side requirements: Will you be using quotes within the strings? (See Ady's answer.)
Server-side language: VB.NET people might choose to use single quotes for JavaScript so that the scripts can be built server-side (VB.NET uses double-quotes for strings, so the JavaScript strings are easy to distinguished if they use single quotes).
Library code: If you're using a library that uses a particular style, you might consider using the same style yourself.
Personal preference: You might think one or other style looks better.

Just keep consistency in what you use. But don't let down your comfort level.
"This is my string."; // :-|
"I'm invincible."; // Comfortable :)
'You can\'t beat me.'; // Uncomfortable :(
'Oh! Yes. I can "beat" you.'; // Comfortable :)
"Do you really think, you can \"beat\" me?"; // Uncomfortable :(
"You're my guest. I can \"beat\" you."; // Sometimes, you've to :P
'You\'re my guest too. I can "beat" you too.'; // Sometimes, you've to :P
ECMAScript 6 update
Using template literal syntax.
`Be "my" guest. You're in complete freedom.`; // Most comfort :D

I hope I am not adding something obvious, but I have been struggling with Django, Ajax, and JSON on this.
Assuming that in your HTML code you do use double quotes, as normally should be, I highly suggest to use single quotes for the rest in JavaScript.
So I agree with ady, but with some care.
My bottom line is:
In JavaScript it probably doesn't matter, but as soon as you embed it inside HTML or the like you start to get troubles. You should know what is actually escaping, reading, passing your string.
My simple case was:
tbox.innerHTML = tbox.innerHTML + '<div class="thisbox_des" style="width:210px;" onmouseout="clear()"><a href="/this/thislist/'
+ myThis[i].pk +'"><img src="/site_media/'
+ myThis[i].fields.thumbnail +'" height="80" width="80" style="float:left;" onmouseover="showThis('
+ myThis[i].fields.left +','
+ myThis[i].fields.right +',\''
+ myThis[i].fields.title +'\')"></a><p style="float:left;width:130px;height:80px;"><b>'
+ myThis[i].fields.title +'</b> '
+ myThis[i].fields.description +'</p></div>'
You can spot the ' in the third field of showThis.
The double quote didn't work!
It is clear why, but it is also clear why we should stick to single quotes... I guess...
This case is a very simple HTML embedding, and the error was generated by a simple copy/paste from a 'double quoted' JavaScript code.
So to answer the question:
Try to use single quotes while within HTML. It might save a couple of debug issues...

It's mostly a matter of style and preference. There are some rather interesting and useful technical explorations in the other answers, so perhaps the only thing I might add is to offer a little worldly advice.
If you're coding in a company or team, then it's probably a good idea to follow the "house style".
If you're alone hacking a few side projects, then look at a few prominent leaders in the community. For example, let's say you getting into Node.js. Take a look at core modules, for example, Underscore.js or express and see what convention they use, and consider following that.
If both conventions are equally used, then defer to your personal preference.
If you don't have any personal preference, then flip a coin.
If you don't have a coin, then beer is on me ;)

I am not sure if this is relevant in today's world, but double quotes used to be used for content that needed to have control characters processed and single quotes for strings that didn't.
The compiler will run string manipulation on a double quoted string while leaving a single quoted string literally untouched. This used to lead to 'good' developers choosing to use single quotes for strings that didn't contain control characters like \n or \0 (not processed within single quotes) and double quotes when they needed the string parsed (at a slight cost in CPU cycles for processing the string).

If you are using JSHint, it will raise an error if you use a double quoted string.
I used it through the Yeoman scafflholding of AngularJS, but maybe there is somehow a manner to configure this.
By the way, when you handle HTML into JavaScript, it's easier to use single quote:
var foo = '<div class="cool-stuff">Cool content</div>';
And at least JSON is using double quotes to represent strings.
There isn't any trivial way to answer to your question.

There isn't any difference between single and double quotes in JavaScript.
The specification is important:
Maybe there are performance differences, but they are absolutely minimum and can change any day according to browsers' implementation. Further discussion is futile unless your JavaScript application is hundreds of thousands lines long.
It's like a benchmark if
a=b;
is faster than
a = b;
(extra spaces)
today, in a particular browser and platform, etc.

Examining the pros and cons
In favor of single quotes
Less visual clutter.
Generating HTML: HTML attributes are usually delimited by double quotes.
elem.innerHTML = 'Hello';
However, single quotes are just as legal in HTML.
elem.innerHTML = "<a href='" + url + "'>Hello</a>";
Furthermore, inline HTML is normally an anti-pattern. Prefer templates.
Generating JSON: Only double quotes are allowed in JSON.
myJson = '{ "hello world": true }';
Again, you shouldn’t have to construct JSON this way. JSON.stringify() is often enough. If not, use templates.
In favor of double quotes
Doubles are easier to spot if you don't have color coding. Like in a console log or some kind of view-source setup.
Similarity to other languages: In shell programming (Bash etc.), single-quoted string literals exist, but escapes are not interpreted inside them. C and Java use double quotes for strings and single quotes for characters.
If you want code to be valid JSON, you need to use double quotes.
In favor of both
There is no difference between the two in JavaScript. Therefore, you can use whatever is convenient at the moment. For example, the following string literals all produce the same string:
"He said: \"Let's go!\""
'He said: "Let\'s go!"'
"He said: \"Let\'s go!\""
'He said: \"Let\'s go!\"'
Single quotes for internal strings and double for external. That allows you to distinguish internal constants from strings that are to be displayed to the user (or written to disk etc.). Obviously, you should avoid putting the latter in your code, but that can’t always be done.

Talking about performance, quotes will never be your bottleneck. However, the performance is the same in both cases.
Talking about coding speed, if you use ' for delimiting a string, you will need to escape " quotes. You are more likely to need to use " inside the string. Example:
// JSON Objects:
var jsonObject = '{"foo":"bar"}';
// HTML attributes:
document.getElementById("foobar").innerHTML = '<input type="text">';
Then, I prefer to use ' for delimiting the string, so I have to escape fewer characters.

There are people that claim to see performance differences: old mailing list thread. But I couldn't find any of them to be confirmed.
The main thing is to look at what kind of quotes (double or single) you are using inside your string. It helps to keep the number of escapes low. For instance, when you are working with HTML content inside your strings, it is easier to use single quotes so that you don't have to escape all double quotes around the attributes.

When using CoffeeScript I use double quotes. I agree that you should pick either one and stick to it. CoffeeScript gives you interpolation when using the double quotes.
"This is my #{name}"
ECMAScript 6 is using back ticks (`) for template strings. Which probably has a good reason, but when coding, it can be cumbersome to change the string literals character from quotes or double quotes to backticks in order to get the interpolation feature. CoffeeScript might not be perfect, but using the same string literals character everywhere (double quotes) and always be able to interpolate is a nice feature.
`This is my ${name}`

I would use double quotes when single quotes cannot be used and vice versa:
"'" + singleQuotedValue + "'"
'"' + doubleQuotedValue + '"'
Instead of:
'\'' + singleQuotedValue + '\''
"\"" + doubleQuotedValue + "\""

There is strictly no difference, so it is mostly a matter of taste and of what is in the string (or if the JavaScript code itself is in a string), to keep number of escapes low.
The speed difference legend might come from PHP world, where the two quotes have different behavior.

The difference is purely stylistic. I used to be a double-quote Nazi. Now I use single quotes in nearly all cases. There's no practical difference beyond how your editor highlights the syntax.

You can use single quotes or double quotes.
This enables you for example to easily nest JavaScript content inside HTML attributes, without the need to escape the quotes.
The same is when you create JavaScript with PHP.
The general idea is: if it is possible use such quotes that you won't need to escape.
Less escaping = better code.

In addition, it seems the specification (currently mentioned at MDN) doesn't state any difference between single and double quotes except closing and some unescaped few characters. However, template literal (` - the backtick character) assumes additional parsing/processing.
A string literal is 0 or more Unicode code points enclosed in single or double quotes. Unicode code points may also be represented by an escape sequence. All code points may appear literally in a string literal except for the closing quote code points, U+005C (REVERSE SOLIDUS), U+000D (CARRIAGE RETURN), and U+000A (LINE FEED). Any code points may appear in the form of an escape sequence. String literals evaluate to ECMAScript String values...
Source: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-literals-string-literals

Despite single quotes being encoded using htmlspecialchars, JavaScript is still complaining that these quotes need to be escaped in the function call

Something strange is occurring and I'm stumped.
I have a link that looks basically like this:
Link
As you can see, I'm calling function uploadVariantPicture with parameter "size:'test2&#039".
However, when I actually click the link, JavaScript complains that the two encoded single quotes aren't being escaped. I'm getting the following error:
SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier 'test2'. Expected ')' to end an argument list.
If I decode the two encoded single quotes and escape them using a backslash, then the function call succeeds. But the problem is I need it encoded. I cannot leave it unencoded and escape the quotes. This won't work for my situation.
Any help is greatly appreciated. I'm super confused.

HTML character entities and escapes are replaced by the HTML parser when parsing source. For quotation marks, it allows inclusion of the same kind of quotation mark in an HTML attribute that is being used to quote the attribute value in source.
E.G.
<element attribute=""">
<element attribute='''>
in source would produce attribute values of " (double quote) and ' (single quote) respectively, despite being the delimters used to quote the attribute value in HTML source.
Hence
Link
will produce an href attribute value of
javascript:uploadVariantPicture('size:'test'');
after removal of the outer double quotes by the HTML parser.
Options could include escaping double quotes (HTML ") inside the href value appropriately (it depends on the syntax accepted by uploadVariantPicture), including backslash escapes before the single quotes as mentioned in the post, or not using the javascript: pseudo protocol at all, in favor of adding an event listener in JavaScript.
Not using javascript: pseudo protocol is highly recommended - basically it's a hold over from HTML3.

Consider attaching an event handler properly using JavaScript instead so you don't have to worry about escaping issues, and so that you don't have to rely on the pollution of the global object for the script to work:
const uploadVariantPicture = (arg) => console.log(arg);
document.querySelector('a').addEventListener('click', () => {
uploadVariantPicture("size:'test2'");
});
<a>Link</a>
I can't think of any situations in which an inline handler would be preferable to addEventListener, unless you were deliberately trying to exploit an XSS vulnerability.

Match attribute value of XML string in JS

I've researched stackoverflow and find similar results but it is not really what I wanted.
Given an xml string: "<a b=\"c\"></a>" in javascript context, I want to create a regex that will capture the attribute value including the quotation marks.
NOTE: this is similar if you're using single quotation marks.
Currently I have a regular expression tailored to the XML specification:
[_A-Za-z][\w\.\-]*(?:=\"[^\"]*\")?
[_A-Za-z][\w\.\-]* //This will match the attribute name.
(?:=\"[^\"]*\")? //This will match the attribute value.
\"[^\"]*\" //This part concerns me.
My question now is, what if the xml string looks like this:
<shout statement="Hi! \"Richeve\"."></shout>
I know this is a dumb question to ask but I just want to capture rare cases that this scenario might happen (I know the coder can use single quotes on this scenario) but there are cases that we don't know the current value of the attribute given that the attribute value changes dynamically at runtime.
So to make this clearer, the result of that using the correct regex should be:
"Hi! \"Richeve\"."
I hope my question is clear. Thanks for all the help!
PS: Note that the language context is Javascript and I know it is tempting to use lookbehinds but currently lookbehinds are not supported.
PS: I know it is really hard to parse XML but I have an elegant solution to this :) so I just need this small problem to be solved. So this problem only main focus is capturing quotation marked string tokens containing quotation marks inside the string token.

The standard pattern for content with matching delimiters and embedded escaped delimiters goes like this:
"[^"\\]*(?:\\.[^"\\]*)*"
Ignoring the obvious first and last characters in the pattern, here's how the rest of the pattern works:
[^"\\]*: Consume all characters until a delimiter OR backslash (matching Hi! in your example)
(?:\\.[^"\\]*)* Try to consume a single escaped character \\. followed by a series of non delimiter/backslash characters, repeatedly (matching \"Richeve first and then \". next in your example)
That's it.
You can try to use a more generic delimiter approach using (['"]) and back references, or you can just allow for an alternate pattern with single quotes like so:
("[^"\\]*(?:\\.[^"\\]*)*"|'[^'\\]*(?:\\.[^'\\]*)*')
Here's another description of this technique that might also help (see the section called Strings): http://www.regular-expressions.info/examplesprogrammer.html

Description
I'm pretty really sure embedding double quotes inside a double quoted attribute value is not legal. You could use the unicode equivalent of a double quote \x22 inside the value.
However to answer the question, this expression will:
allow escaped quotes inside attribute values
capture the attribute statement 's value
allow attributes to appear in any order inside the tag
will avoid many of the edge cases which will trip up pattern matching inside html text
doesn't use lookbehinds
<shout\b(?=\s)(?=(?:[^>=]|='(?:[^']|\\')*'|="(?:[^"]|\\")*"|=[^'"][^\s>]*)*?\sstatement=(['"])((?:\\['"]|.)*?)\1(?:\s|\/>|>))(?:[^>=]|='(?:[^']|\\')*'|="(?:[^"]|\\")*"|=[^'"][^\s>]*)*>.*?<\/shout>
Example
Pretty Rubular
Ugly RegexPlanet set to Javascript
Sample Text
Note the difficult edge case in the first attribute :)
<shout onmouseover=' statement="He said \"I am Inside the onMouseOver\" " ; if ( 6 > a ) { funRotate(statement) } ; ' statement="Hi! \"Richeve\"." title="sometitle">SomeString</shout>
Matches
Group 0 gets the entire tag from open to close
Group 1 gets the quote surrounding the statement attribute value, this is used to match the closing quote correctly
Group 2 gets the statement attribute value which may include escaped quotes like \" but not including the surrounding quotes
[0][0] = <shout onmouseover=' statement="He said \"I am Inside the onMouseOver\" " ; if ( 6 > a ) { funRotate(statement) } ; ' statement="Hi! \"Richeve\"." title="sometitle">SomeString</shout>
[0][1] = "
[0][2] = Hi! \"Richeve\".

single quotes versus double quotes in js [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When to Use Double or Single Quotes in JavaScript
Are there any differences between single and double quotes in javascript?

No, is the right answer most of the time. However if you want to write valid JSON, then you should use double quotes for object literals.

No, except in double quotes you can put single quotes.
e.g. "Don't not do this"
And in single quotes you can put double quotes.
e.g. 'John said "Do this"'

No difference. Just make sure you close the string with whatever you open it with.
Much more sensible to me than other languages (looking at you, C# and PHP...) where single quoted strings are either character literals, or don't expand escaped characters.

One is slightly wider, so you may have a few extra characters disappear to the right (as opposed to the slimmer version) in your favourite IDE.
Seriously though, I always use ', because if I need to quote a HTML element attribute, I always use " and I can't be bothered escaping like so
var html = "hello"

You would mostly use " unless in a position in where you can't escape it. ( It is neater to most developers, Don't ask why )
Also "$myVar" in php will allow the string to have the variables value. ( I know its not javascript, but another example..
In bash,
echo "What is your name?\nMy name is $(whoami)."
will run the function / command whoami.
<button onclick="dosomething(\"test\")">Test</button> Won't work
<button onclick="dosomething("test")">Test</button> Won't work
<section id='"Where-As">
<button onclick="dosomething('test')">Test</button>
<!-- will work -->
</section>
P.S: Valid JSON objects should be using double quotes.
Other fun with different quotes:
console.log('\n\n\n\n'); // Will give you \n\n\n\n as a string.
console.log("\n\n\n\n"); // Will give lines.

Using JavaScript single and double quotes for href's

I am having problem with escaping the single and double quotes inside the hrefs JavaScript function.
I have this JavaScript code inside href. It's like -
click this
Now, since double quotes inside double quote is not valid, I need to escape the inner double quotes for it to be treated as part of the string -
so, I need to do this -
click this
The problem is, even the above code is not working. The JavaScript code is getting truncated at -- myFunc(
I tried with the single quote variation too - but even that doesn't seem to work (meaning that if I have a single quote inside my string literal then the code gets truncated).
This is what I did with a single quote:
<a href = 'javascript:myFunc("fileDir/fileName.doc" , true)'> click this </a>
This works, but if I have a single quote inside the string then the code gets truncated in the same way as that of double quotes one.

Using backslashes to escape quotes is how it works in JavaScript, but you're not actually writing JavaScript code there: you're writing HTML. You can do it by using the HTML escaping method: character entities.
" // "
' // '
For example:
...

In case anyone needs to escape some thing like this:
<a href="www.google.com/search?q="how+to+escape+quotes+in+href""</a>
You can use ASCII code for double quotes %22:
<a href="www.google.com/search?q=%22how+to+escape+quotes+in+href%22"</a>
It is especially useful if you pass the link to JavaScript from PHP

As a general best practice, use double-quotes in HTML and single-quotes in JavaScript. That will solve most of your problems. If you need a single-quote in a JavaScript string, you can just escape it using \' - and you probably shouldn't be nesting literal strings any deeper than that.
As noted elsewhere, HTML entities are a possibility if the code is embedded in HTML. But you'll still have to deal with escaping quotes in strings in your JavaScript source files, so it's best to just have a consistent strategy for dealing with JavaScript.
If you are following this strategy and end up with a double-quote embedded in your JavaScript embedded in your HTML, just use the HTML entity ".

Normally, this kind of code is working without problems:
Click this
With this code, do you have any problem?