当某种东西可以变异时，它就获得了一种认同感。

struct Person {
    public string name; // mutable
    public Point position = new Point(0, 0); // mutable

    public Person(string name, Point position) { ... }
}

Person eric = new Person("Eric Lippert", new Point(4, 2));

Because Person is mutable, it's more natural to think about changing Eric's position than cloning Eric, moving the clone, and destroying the original. Both operations would succeed in changing the contents of eric.position, but one is more intuitive than the other. Likewise, it's more intuitive to pass Eric around (as a reference) for methods to modify him. Giving a method a clone of Eric is almost always going to be surprising. Anyone wanting to mutate Person must remember to ask for a reference to Person or they'll be doing the wrong thing.

如果你让类型是不可变的，这个问题就消失了;如果我不能修改eric，无论我收到eric还是eric的克隆对我来说都没有区别。更一般地说，如果类型的所有可观察状态都保存在以下成员中，则按值传递是安全的:

不可变的 引用类型 安全通过价值

如果满足这些条件，那么可变值类型的行为就像引用类型一样，因为浅拷贝仍然允许接收方修改原始数据。

The intuitiveness of an immutable Person depends on what you're trying to do though. If Person just represents a set of data about a person, there's nothing unintuitive about it; Person variables truly represent abstract values, not objects. (In that case, it'd probably be more appropriate to rename it to PersonData.) If Person is actually modeling a person itself, the idea of constantly creating and moving clones is silly even if you've avoided the pitfall of thinking you're modifying the original. In that case it'd probably be more natural to simply make Person a reference type (that is, a class.)

诚然，函数式编程已经告诉我们，使所有东西都不可变是有好处的(没有人可以秘密地保留对eric的引用并改变他)，但由于这在OOP中不是惯用的，因此对于使用您的代码的其他人来说仍然是不直观的。

当某种东西可以变异时，它就获得了一种认同感。

struct Person {
    public string name; // mutable
    public Point position = new Point(0, 0); // mutable

    public Person(string name, Point position) { ... }
}

Person eric = new Person("Eric Lippert", new Point(4, 2));

Because Person is mutable, it's more natural to think about changing Eric's position than cloning Eric, moving the clone, and destroying the original. Both operations would succeed in changing the contents of eric.position, but one is more intuitive than the other. Likewise, it's more intuitive to pass Eric around (as a reference) for methods to modify him. Giving a method a clone of Eric is almost always going to be surprising. Anyone wanting to mutate Person must remember to ask for a reference to Person or they'll be doing the wrong thing.

如果你让类型是不可变的，这个问题就消失了;如果我不能修改eric，无论我收到eric还是eric的克隆对我来说都没有区别。更一般地说，如果类型的所有可观察状态都保存在以下成员中，则按值传递是安全的:

不可变的 引用类型 安全通过价值

如果满足这些条件，那么可变值类型的行为就像引用类型一样，因为浅拷贝仍然允许接收方修改原始数据。

The intuitiveness of an immutable Person depends on what you're trying to do though. If Person just represents a set of data about a person, there's nothing unintuitive about it; Person variables truly represent abstract values, not objects. (In that case, it'd probably be more appropriate to rename it to PersonData.) If Person is actually modeling a person itself, the idea of constantly creating and moving clones is silly even if you've avoided the pitfall of thinking you're modifying the original. In that case it'd probably be more natural to simply make Person a reference type (that is, a class.)

诚然，函数式编程已经告诉我们，使所有东西都不可变是有好处的(没有人可以秘密地保留对eric的引用并改变他)，但由于这在OOP中不是惯用的，因此对于使用您的代码的其他人来说仍然是不直观的。

就我个人而言，当我看代码时，下面的代码看起来相当笨拙:

data.value.set ( data.value.get () + 1 ) ;

而不是简单地

数据.值++ ;或数据值 = 数据值 + 1 ;

数据封装在传递类时非常有用，并且您希望确保以受控的方式修改值。然而，当你拥有公共的set和get函数，它们所做的仅仅是将值设置为传递进来的值时，这比简单地传递公共数据结构有什么改进呢?

当我在类中创建私有结构时，我创建了该结构来将一组变量组织到一个组中。我希望能够在类范围内修改该结构，而不是获得该结构的副本并创建新实例。

对我来说，这阻止了有效使用用于组织公共变量的结构，如果我想要访问控制，我会使用类。

从哪里开始;-p

埃里克·利珀特的博客总是很适合引用:

这是可变的另一个原因 值类型是邪恶的。试着总是 使值类型不可变。

首先，您很容易丢失更改……例如，从列表中获取内容:

Foo foo = list[0];
foo.Name = "abc";

这改变了什么?没有什么有用的…

属性也是一样:

myObj.SomeProperty.Size = 22; // the compiler spots this one

强迫你做:

Bar bar = myObj.SomeProperty;
bar.Size = 22;
myObj.SomeProperty = bar;

不那么关键的是规模问题;可变对象往往有多个属性;然而，如果你有一个包含两个int型，一个string型，一个DateTime型和一个bool型的结构体，你会很快消耗大量内存。使用类，多个调用方可以共享对同一个实例的引用(引用很小)。

它与结构无关(也与c#无关)，但在Java中，当可变对象是哈希映射中的键时，你可能会遇到问题。如果你在将它们添加到映射后更改它们，它也更改了哈希代码，可能会发生糟糕的事情。

如果你坚持结构体的用途(在c#、Visual Basic 6、Pascal/Delphi、c++结构类型(或类)中，当它们不用作指针时)，你会发现结构体只不过是一个复合变量。这意味着:您将把它们视为一个通用名称(您引用成员的记录变量)下的一组变量。

我知道这会让很多习惯于面向对象编程的人感到困惑，但如果使用得当，这并不是说这些东西本质上是邪恶的理由。有些结构按照它们的意图是不可变的(Python的namedtuple就是这种情况)，但这是另一种需要考虑的范例。

是的:结构体涉及大量内存，但它不会精确地通过执行以下操作来增加内存:

point.x = point.x + 1

相比:

point = Point(point.x + 1, point.y)

在不可变的情况下，内存消耗至少是相同的，甚至更多(尽管这种情况对于当前堆栈来说是临时的，这取决于语言)。

But, finally, structures are structures, not objects. In POO, the main property of an object is their identity, which most of the times is not more than its memory address. Struct stands for data structure (not a proper object, and so they don't have identity anyhow), and data can be modified. In other languages, record (instead of struct, as is the case for Pascal) is the word and holds the same purpose: just a data record variable, intended to be read from files, modified, and dumped into files (that is the main use and, in many languages, you can even define data alignment in the record, while that's not necessarily the case for properly called Objects).

Want a good example? Structs are used to read files easily. Python has this library because, since it is object-oriented and has no support for structs, it had to implement it in another way, which is somewhat ugly. Languages implementing structs have that feature... built-in. Try reading a bitmap header with an appropriate struct in languages like Pascal or C. It will be easy (if the struct is properly built and aligned; in Pascal you would not use a record-based access but functions to read arbitrary binary data). So, for files and direct (local) memory access, structs are better than objects. As for today, we're used to JSON and XML, and so we forget the use of binary files (and as a side effect, the use of structs). But yes: they exist, and have a purpose.

他们并不邪恶。只要把它们用在正确的地方。

如果你从锤子的角度思考，你会想把螺丝当作钉子，发现螺丝更难扎进墙里，这将是螺丝的错，它们将是邪恶的。