我不会说结构体提供的功能更少。

当然，self是不可变的，除了在突变函数中，但仅此而已。

继承可以很好地工作，只要您坚持每个类都应该是抽象的或最终的。

将抽象类实现为协议，将最终类实现为结构。

struct的好处是你可以在不创建共享可变状态的情况下使你的字段可变，因为写时复制会照顾到这一点:)

这就是为什么下面例子中的属性/字段都是可变的，我不会在Java或c#或swift类中这样做。

示例继承结构，在底部名为" Example "的函数中有一点脏和直接的用法:

protocol EventVisitor
{
    func visit(event: TimeEvent)
    func visit(event: StatusEvent)
}

protocol Event
{
    var ts: Int64 { get set }

    func accept(visitor: EventVisitor)
}

struct TimeEvent : Event
{
    var ts: Int64
    var time: Int64

    func accept(visitor: EventVisitor)
    {
        visitor.visit(self)
    }
}

protocol StatusEventVisitor
{
    func visit(event: StatusLostStatusEvent)
    func visit(event: StatusChangedStatusEvent)
}

protocol StatusEvent : Event
{
    var deviceId: Int64 { get set }

    func accept(visitor: StatusEventVisitor)
}

struct StatusLostStatusEvent : StatusEvent
{
    var ts: Int64
    var deviceId: Int64
    var reason: String

    func accept(visitor: EventVisitor)
    {
        visitor.visit(self)
    }

    func accept(visitor: StatusEventVisitor)
    {
        visitor.visit(self)
    }
}

struct StatusChangedStatusEvent : StatusEvent
{
    var ts: Int64
    var deviceId: Int64
    var newStatus: UInt32
    var oldStatus: UInt32

    func accept(visitor: EventVisitor)
    {
        visitor.visit(self)
    }

    func accept(visitor: StatusEventVisitor)
    {
        visitor.visit(self)
    }
}

func readEvent(fd: Int) -> Event
{
    return TimeEvent(ts: 123, time: 56789)
}

func example()
{
    class Visitor : EventVisitor
    {
        var status: UInt32 = 3;

        func visit(event: TimeEvent)
        {
            print("A time event: \(event)")
        }

        func visit(event: StatusEvent)
        {
            print("A status event: \(event)")

            if let change = event as? StatusChangedStatusEvent
            {
                status = change.newStatus
            }
        }
    }

    let visitor = Visitor()

    readEvent(1).accept(visitor)

    print("status: \(visitor.status)")
}

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。

结构比类快得多。同样，如果你需要继承，那么你必须使用Class。最重要的一点是类是引用类型，而结构是值类型。例如,

class Flight {
    var id:Int?
    var description:String?
    var destination:String?
    var airlines:String?
    init(){
        id = 100
        description = "first ever flight of Virgin Airlines"
        destination = "london"
        airlines = "Virgin Airlines"
    } 
}

struct Flight2 {
    var id:Int
    var description:String
    var destination:String
    var airlines:String  
}

现在让我们创建两者的实例。

var flightA = Flight()

var flightB = Flight2.init(id: 100, description:"first ever flight of Virgin Airlines", destination:"london" , airlines:"Virgin Airlines" )

现在让我们将这些实例传递给两个修改id、描述、目的地等的函数。

func modifyFlight(flight:Flight) -> Void {
    flight.id = 200
    flight.description = "second flight of Virgin Airlines"
    flight.destination = "new york"
    flight.airlines = "Virgin Airlines"
}

同时,

func modifyFlight2(flight2: Flight2) -> Void {
    var passedFlight = flight2
    passedFlight.id = 200
    passedFlight.description = "second flight from virgin airlines" 
}

so,

modifyFlight(flight: flightA)
modifyFlight2(flight2: flightB)

现在如果我们打印航班a的id和描述，我们得到

id = 200
description = "second flight of Virgin Airlines"

在这里，我们可以看到FlightA的id和描述被改变了，因为传递给modify方法的参数实际上指向FlightA对象(引用类型)的内存地址。

现在如果我们打印FLightB实例的id和描述，

id = 100
description = "first ever flight of Virgin Airlines"

这里我们可以看到FlightB实例没有改变，因为在modifyFlight2方法中，Flight2的实际实例是传递而不是引用(值类型)。

许多Cocoa api需要NSObject子类，这迫使你使用class。但除此之外，你可以使用以下苹果Swift博客中的案例来决定是使用struct / enum值类型还是类引用类型。

https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=10

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

对于类，您获得继承并通过引用传递，而结构则没有继承并通过值传递。

有很多关于Swift的WWDC会议，其中一个会议详细回答了这个问题。确保你看了这些，因为它会让你更快地跟上语言指南或iBook。