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

与Structs相比，OpenStructs使用的内存明显更多，运行速度更慢。

require 'ostruct' 

collection = (1..100000).collect do |index|
   OpenStruct.new(:name => "User", :age => 21)
end

在我的系统上，以下代码在14秒内执行，消耗了1.5 GB内存。你的里程可能有所不同:

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

collection = (1..100000).collect do |index|
   User.new("User",21)
end

这几乎是在瞬间完成的，消耗了26.6 MB的内存。

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)

Not actually an answer to the question, but a very important consideration if you care about performance. Please notice that every time you create an OpenStruct the operation clears the method cache, which means your application will perform slower. The slowness or not of OpenStruct is not just about how it works by itself, but the implications that using them bring to the whole application: https://github.com/charliesome/charlie.bz/blob/master/posts/things-that-clear-rubys-method-cache.md#openstructs

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)

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.