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)")
}

在Swift中，引入了一种新的编程模式，称为面向协议编程。

创建型模式:

在swift中，Struct是一种自动克隆的值类型。因此，我们可以免费获得实现原型模式所需的行为。

而类是引用类型，在赋值过程中不会自动克隆。为了实现原型模式，类必须采用NSCopying协议。

浅拷贝只复制指向那些对象的引用，而深拷贝复制对象的引用。

为每种引用类型实现深度复制已成为一项乏味的任务。如果类包含进一步的引用类型，我们必须为每个引用属性实现原型模式。然后我们需要通过实现NSCopying协议复制整个对象图。

class Contact{
  var firstName:String
  var lastName:String
  var workAddress:Address // Reference type
}

class Address{
   var street:String
   ...
} 

通过使用结构体和枚举，我们使我们的代码更简单，因为我们不需要实现复制逻辑。

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。

根据2015年非常流行的WWDC演讲，Swift中面向协议的编程(视频，文本)，Swift提供了许多特性，使得结构在很多情况下比类更好。

如果结构相对较小且可复制，则更可取，因为复制比类中对同一个实例有多个引用要安全得多。当将一个变量传递给多个类和/或多线程环境时，这一点尤其重要。如果你总是可以将变量的副本发送到其他地方，你就不必担心其他地方会改变你下面变量的值。

使用Structs，不太需要担心内存泄漏或多个线程竞相访问/修改变量的单个实例。(对于更有技术头脑的人来说，例外情况是在闭包内捕获结构时，因为它实际上是在捕获实例的引用，除非您显式地将其标记为要复制)。

类也可能变得臃肿，因为一个类只能继承一个超类。这鼓励我们创建巨大的超类，其中包含许多不同的能力，而这些能力之间只有松散的关联。使用协议，特别是使用可以为协议提供实现的协议扩展，允许您消除实现此类行为所需的类。

演讲列出了优先使用类的这些场景:

复制或比较实例没有意义(例如，Window) 实例生命周期与外部效果(例如，TemporaryFile)相关联。 实例只是“接收器”——只写外部状态的管道(例如cgcontext)

这意味着结构应该是默认的，而类应该是备用的。

另一方面，Swift编程语言文档有些矛盾:

Structure instances are always passed by value, and class instances are always passed by reference. This means that they are suited to different kinds of tasks. As you consider the data constructs and functionality that you need for a project, decide whether each data construct should be defined as a class or as a structure. As a general guideline, consider creating a structure when one or more of these conditions apply: The structure’s primary purpose is to encapsulate a few relatively simple data values. It is reasonable to expect that the encapsulated values will be copied rather than referenced when you assign or pass around an instance of that structure. Any properties stored by the structure are themselves value types, which would also be expected to be copied rather than referenced. The structure does not need to inherit properties or behavior from another existing type. Examples of good candidates for structures include: The size of a geometric shape, perhaps encapsulating a width property and a height property, both of type Double. A way to refer to ranges within a series, perhaps encapsulating a start property and a length property, both of type Int. A point in a 3D coordinate system, perhaps encapsulating x, y and z properties, each of type Double. In all other cases, define a class, and create instances of that class to be managed and passed by reference. In practice, this means that most custom data constructs should be classes, not structures.

在这里，它声称我们应该只在特定的情况下默认使用类和使用结构。最后，您需要了解值类型与引用类型的实际含义，然后才能就何时使用结构或类做出明智的决定。此外，请记住，这些概念一直在发展，Swift编程语言文档是在面向协议编程演讲之前编写的。

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。

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