结构和类之间的相似之处。

我用简单的例子来创建主旨。 https://github.com/objc-swift/swift-classes-vs-structures

和差异

1. 继承。

结构不能在swift中继承。如果你愿意

class Vehicle{
}

class Car : Vehicle{
}

参加一个培训班。

2. 经过

Swift结构按值传递，类实例按引用传递。

语境的差异

结构常量和变量

示例(用于2014年全球开发者大会)

struct Point{
 
   var x = 0.0;
   var y = 0.0;

} 

定义一个名为Point的结构体。

var point = Point(x:0.0,y:2.0)

现在如果我试着改变x，它是一个有效的表达式。

point.x = 5

但如果我定义一个点为常数。

let point = Point(x:0.0,y:2.0)
point.x = 5 //This will give compile time error.

在这种情况下，整个点是不可变常数。

如果我使用类Point代替，这是一个有效的表达式。因为在一个类中，不可变常量是对类本身的引用，而不是它的实例变量(除非那些变量定义为常量)

以下是一些值得考虑的其他原因:

struct有一个自动初始化式，你根本不需要在代码中维护它。 struct MorphProperty { var类型:MorphPropertyValueType var键:字符串 var值:AnyObject enum MorphPropertyValueType { case字符串，Int, Double ｝ ｝ var m = MorphProperty(类型:.Int，键:“什么”，值:“blah”)

要在类中得到这个，你必须添加初始化式，并维护初始化式…

Basic collection types like Array are structs. The more you use them in your own code, the more you will get used to passing by value as opposed to reference. For instance: func removeLast(var array:[String]) { array.removeLast() println(array) // [one, two] } var someArray = ["one", "two", "three"] removeLast(someArray) println(someArray) // [one, two, three] Apparently immutability vs. mutability is a huge topic, but a lot of smart folks think immutability -- structs in this case -- is preferable. Mutable vs immutable objects

从值类型和引用类型的角度来回答这个问题，从苹果博客的这篇文章来看，它看起来非常简单:

使用值类型[例如struct, enum]: 用==比较实例数据是有意义的 你希望副本有独立的状态 这些数据将在代码中跨多个线程使用 在以下情况下使用引用类型[例如class]: 比较实例标识和===是有意义的 您希望创建共享的、可变的状态

正如在那篇文章中提到的，没有可写属性的类将与结构体的行为相同，但有一点需要注意:结构体最适合线程安全模型——这是现代应用程序架构中日益迫切的需求。

假设我们知道Struct是值类型，Class是引用类型。

如果你不知道值类型和引用类型是什么，那么看看按引用传递和按值传递之间的区别是什么?

根据mikeash的帖子:

... Let's look at some extreme, obvious examples first. Integers are obviously copyable. They should be value types. Network sockets can't be sensibly copied. They should be reference types. Points, as in x, y pairs, are copyable. They should be value types. A controller that represents a disk can't be sensibly copied. That should be a reference type. Some types can be copied but it may not be something you want to happen all the time. This suggests that they should be reference types. For example, a button on the screen can conceptually be copied. The copy will not be quite identical to the original. A click on the copy will not activate the original. The copy will not occupy the same location on the screen. If you pass the button around or put it into a new variable you'll probably want to refer to the original button, and you'd only want to make a copy when it's explicitly requested. That means that your button type should be a reference type. View and window controllers are a similar example. They might be copyable, conceivably, but it's almost never what you'd want to do. They should be reference types. What about model types? You might have a User type representing a user on your system, or a Crime type representing an action taken by a User. These are pretty copyable, so they should probably be value types. However, you probably want updates to a User's Crime made in one place in your program to be visible to other parts of the program. This suggests that your Users should be managed by some sort of user controller which would be a reference type. e.g struct User {} class UserController { var users: [User] func add(user: User) { ... } func remove(userNamed: String) { ... } func ... } Collections are an interesting case. These include things like arrays and dictionaries, as well as strings. Are they copyable? Obviously. Is copying something you want to happen easily and often? That's less clear. Most languages say "no" to this and make their collections reference types. This is true in Objective-C and Java and Python and JavaScript and almost every other language I can think of. (One major exception is C++ with STL collection types, but C++ is the raving lunatic of the language world which does everything strangely.) Swift said "yes," which means that types like Array and Dictionary and String are structs rather than classes. They get copied on assignment, and on passing them as parameters. This is an entirely sensible choice as long as the copy is cheap, which Swift tries very hard to accomplish. ...

我个人不会这样命名我的类。我通常将我的命名为UserManager而不是UserController，但想法是一样的

另外，当你必须重写一个函数的每个实例(即它们没有任何共享功能)时，不要使用类。

所以不是一个类的几个子类。使用几个符合协议的结构体。

---

使用结构体的另一种合理情况是，当你想对新旧模型进行delta/diff运算时。对于引用类型，你不能开箱即用。对于值类型，突变是不共享的。

As struct are value types and you can create the memory very easily which stores into stack.Struct can be easily accessible and after the scope of the work it's easily deallocated from the stack memory through pop from the top of the stack. On the other hand class is a reference type which stores in heap and changes made in one class object will impact to other object as they are tightly coupled and reference type.All members of a structure are public whereas all the members of a class are private.

struct的缺点是不能被继承。

这个答案最初是关于结构和类之间性能的差异。不幸的是，关于我使用的测量方法有太多的争议。我把它留在下面，但请不要过多地去理解它。我认为经过这么多年，在Swift社区中，struct(以及enum)由于其简单和安全而一直是首选。

如果性能对你的应用很重要，那就自己衡量。我仍然认为大多数时候结构性能更优越，但最好的答案就像有人在评论中说的那样:这要看情况。

===旧答案===

由于结构实例是在堆栈上分配的，而类实例是在堆上分配的，因此结构有时会快得多。

但是，您应该始终自己衡量它，并根据您独特的用例进行决定。

考虑下面的例子，它演示了使用结构和类包装Int数据类型的两种策略。我使用10个重复值是为了更好地反映现实世界，其中有多个字段。

class Int10Class {
    let value1, value2, value3, value4, value5, value6, value7, value8, value9, value10: Int
    init(_ val: Int) {
        self.value1 = val
        self.value2 = val
        self.value3 = val
        self.value4 = val
        self.value5 = val
        self.value6 = val
        self.value7 = val
        self.value8 = val
        self.value9 = val
        self.value10 = val
    }
}

struct Int10Struct {
    let value1, value2, value3, value4, value5, value6, value7, value8, value9, value10: Int
    init(_ val: Int) {
        self.value1 = val
        self.value2 = val
        self.value3 = val
        self.value4 = val
        self.value5 = val
        self.value6 = val
        self.value7 = val
        self.value8 = val
        self.value9 = val
        self.value10 = val
    }
}

func + (x: Int10Class, y: Int10Class) -> Int10Class {
    return IntClass(x.value + y.value)
}

func + (x: Int10Struct, y: Int10Struct) -> Int10Struct {
    return IntStruct(x.value + y.value)
}

使用以下方法来衡量性能

// Measure Int10Class
measure("class (10 fields)") {
    var x = Int10Class(0)
    for _ in 1...10000000 {
        x = x + Int10Class(1)
    }
}

// Measure Int10Struct
measure("struct (10 fields)") {
    var y = Int10Struct(0)
    for _ in 1...10000000 {
        y = y + Int10Struct(1)
    }
}

func measure(name: String, @noescape block: () -> ()) {
    let t0 = CACurrentMediaTime()
    
    block()
    
    let dt = CACurrentMediaTime() - t0
    print("\(name) -> \(dt)")
}

代码可以在https://github.com/knguyen2708/StructVsClassPerformance上找到

更新（2018年3月27日）：

Swift 4.0, Xcode 9.2，在iPhone 6S, iOS 11.2.6上运行Release build, Swift编译器设置为-O -全模块优化:

类版本用时2.06秒 Struct版本耗时4.17e-08秒(快了50,000,000倍)

(我不再平均多次运行，因为方差非常小，低于5%)

注意:在没有整个模块优化的情况下，差异会小很多。如果有人能指出这面旗子到底是干什么的，我会很高兴。

---

更新(2016年5月7日):

Swift 2.2.1, Xcode 7.3，在iPhone 6S, iOS 9.3.1上运行Release build，平均运行5次，Swift编译器设置为-O -whole-module-optimization:

类版本花费了2.159942142s struct版本耗时5.83 e -08秒(快37,000,000倍)

注意:正如有人提到的，在现实场景中，一个结构中可能会有多个字段，我已经为结构/类添加了10个字段而不是1个字段的测试。令人惊讶的是，结果变化不大。

---

原始结果(2014年6月1日):

(在struct/class上运行，只有1个字段，而不是10个)

在Swift 1.2、Xcode 6.3.2、iPhone 5S和iOS 8.3上运行Release版本时，平均运行超过5次

类版本花费了9.788332333s Struct版本花费0.010532942秒(快900倍)

---

旧结果(未知时间)

(在struct/class上运行，只有1个字段，而不是10个)

在我的MacBook Pro上发布:

类版本花费了1.10082秒 struct版本花了0.02324秒(快了50倍)