看一下与新方法相关的API。这里有很多不同之处。

就我个人而言，我非常喜欢OpenStruct，因为我不需要预先定义对象的结构，只需要添加我想要的东西。我猜这将是它的主要(缺点)优势?

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Struct.html http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/ostruct/rdoc/classes/OpenStruct.html

结构:

>> s = Struct.new(:a, :b).new(1, 2)
=> #<struct a=1, b=2>
>> s.a
=> 1
>> s.b
=> 2
>> s.c
NoMethodError: undefined method `c` for #<struct a=1, b=2>

OpenStruct:

>> require 'ostruct'
=> true
>> os = OpenStruct.new(a: 1, b: 2)
=> #<OpenStruct a=1, b=2>
>> os.a
=> 1
>> os.b
=> 2
>> os.c
=> nil

使用@Robert代码，我将Hashie::Mash添加到基准测试项中，得到了这样的结果:

                           user     system      total        real
Hashie::Mash slow      3.600000   0.000000   3.600000 (  3.755142)
Hashie::Mash fast      3.000000   0.000000   3.000000 (  3.318067)
OpenStruct slow       11.200000   0.010000  11.210000 ( 12.095004)
OpenStruct fast       10.900000   0.000000  10.900000 ( 12.669553)
Struct slow            0.370000   0.000000   0.370000 (  0.470550)
Struct fast            0.140000   0.000000   0.140000 (  0.145161)

两者的用例完全不同。

你可以把Ruby 1.9中的Struct类看作相当于c中的Struct声明。new接受一组字段名作为参数，并返回一个新Class。类似地，在C语言中，struct声明接受一组字段，并允许程序员像使用任何内置类型一样使用新的复杂类型。

Ruby:

Newtype = Struct.new(:data1, :data2)
n = Newtype.new

C:

typedef struct {
  int data1;
  char data2;
} newtype;

newtype n;

OpenStruct类可以与c语言中的匿名结构声明相比较。它允许程序员创建复杂类型的实例。

Ruby:

o = OpenStruct.new(data1: 0, data2: 0) 
o.data1 = 1
o.data2 = 2

C:

struct {
  int data1;
  char data2;
} o;

o.data1 = 1;
o.data2 = 2;

下面是一些常见的用例。

OpenStructs可以很容易地将散列转换为一次性对象，从而响应所有散列键。

h = { a: 1, b: 2 }
o = OpenStruct.new(h)
o.a = 1
o.b = 2

struct可以用于简化类定义。

class MyClass < Struct.new(:a,:b,:c)
end

m = MyClass.new
m.a = 1

使用OpenStruct，您可以任意创建属性。另一方面，Struct必须在创建时定义其属性。选择一种还是另一种应该主要基于您以后是否需要能够添加属性。

The way to think about them is as the middle ground of the spectrum between Hashes on one side and classes on the other. They imply a more concrete relationship amongst the data than does a Hash, but they don't have the instance methods as would a class. A bunch of options for a function, for example, make sense in a hash; they're only loosely related. A name, email, and phone number needed by a function could be packaged together in a Struct or OpenStruct. If that name, email, and phone number needed methods to provide the name in both "First Last" and "Last, First" formats, then you should create a class to handle it.

其他指标:

require 'benchmark'
require 'ostruct'

REP = 100000

User = Struct.new(:name, :age)

USER = "User".freeze
AGE = 21
HASH = {:name => USER, :age => AGE}.freeze

Benchmark.bm 20 do |x|
  x.report 'OpenStruct slow' do
    REP.times do |index|
       OpenStruct.new(:name => "User", :age => 21)
    end
  end

  x.report 'OpenStruct fast' do
    REP.times do |index|
       OpenStruct.new(HASH)
    end
  end

  x.report 'Struct slow' do
    REP.times do |index|
       User.new("User", 21)
    end
  end

  x.report 'Struct fast' do
    REP.times do |index|
       User.new(USER, AGE)
    end
  end
end

对于那些没有耐心的人来说，他们想要了解基准测试结果，而不需要自己运行它们，下面是上面代码的输出(在MB Pro 2.4GHz i7上)

                          user     system      total        real
OpenStruct slow       4.430000   0.250000   4.680000 (  4.683851)
OpenStruct fast       4.380000   0.270000   4.650000 (  4.649809)
Struct slow           0.090000   0.000000   0.090000 (  0.094136)
Struct fast           0.080000   0.000000   0.080000 (  0.078940)