MSDN says that you should use structs when you need lightweight objects. Are there any other scenarios when a struct is preferable over a class?
Some people might have forgotten that:
I understand the technical differences between structs and classes, I just don't have a good feel for when to use a struct.
MSDN has the answer: Choosing Between Classes and Structures.
Basically, that page gives you a 4-item checklist and says to use a class unless your type meets all of the criteria.
Do not define a structure unless the type has all of the following characteristics:
- It logically represents a single value, similar to primitive types (integer, double, and so on).
- It has an instance size smaller than 16 bytes.
- It is immutable.
- It will not have to be boxed frequently.
I am surprised I have not read at any of the previous answer this, which I consider the most crucial aspect :
I use structs when I want a type with no identity. For example a 3D point:
public struct ThreeDimensionalPoint
{
public readonly int X, Y, Z;
public ThreeDimensionalPoint(int x, int y, int z)
{
this.X = x;
this.Y = y;
this.Z = z;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "(X=" + this.X + ", Y=" + this.Y + ", Z=" + this.Z + ")";
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return (this.X + 2) ^ (this.Y + 2) ^ (this.Z + 2);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (!(obj is ThreeDimensionalPoint))
return false;
ThreeDimensionalPoint other = (ThreeDimensionalPoint)obj;
return this == other;
}
public static bool operator ==(ThreeDimensionalPoint p1, ThreeDimensionalPoint p2)
{
return p1.X == p2.X && p1.Y == p2.Y && p1.Z == p2.Z;
}
public static bool operator !=(ThreeDimensionalPoint p1, ThreeDimensionalPoint p2)
{
return !(p1 == p2);
}
}
If you have two instances of this struct you don't care if they are a single piece of data in memory or two. You just care about the value(s) they hold.
Bill Wagner has a chapter about this in his book "effective c#" (http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Specific-Ways-Improve-Your/dp/0321245660). He concludes by using the following principle:
- Is the main responsability of the type data storage?
- Is its public interface defined entirely by properties that access or modify its data members?
- Are you sure your type will never have subclasses?
- Are you sure your type will never be treated polymorphically?
If you answer 'yes' to all 4 questions: use a struct. Otherwise, use a class.
Use a class if:
Use a structure if:
Use a struct when you want value-type semantics instead of reference-type. Structs are copy-by-value so be careful!
Also see previous questions, e.g.
I would use structs when:
an object is supposed to be read only(every time you pass/assign a struct it gets copied). Read only objects are great when it comes to multithreaded processing as they don't requite locking in most cases.
an object is small and short-living. In such a case there is a good chance that the object will be allocated on the stack which is much more efficient than putting it on the managed heap. What is more the memory allocated by the object will be freed as soon as it goes outside its scope. In other words it's less work for Garbage Collector and the memory is used more efficient.
It is an old topic, but wanted to provide a simple benchmark test.
I have created two .cs files:
public class TestClass
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
and
public struct TestStruct
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
Run benchmark:
Results:
BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.0, OS=Windows 10.0.18362
Intel Core i5-8250U CPU 1.60GHz (Kaby Lake R), 1 CPU, 8 logical and 4 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=3.1.101
[Host] : .NET Core 3.1.1 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.60701, CoreFX 4.700.19.60801), X64 RyuJIT [AttachedDebugger]
DefaultJob : .NET Core 3.1.1 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.60701, CoreFX 4.700.19.60801), X64 RyuJIT
| Method | Mean | Error | StdDev | Ratio | RatioSD | Rank | Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Gen 2 | Allocated |
|--------------- |---------------:|--------------:|--------------:|----------:|--------:|-----:|---------:|------:|------:|----------:|
| UseStruct | 0.0000 ns | 0.0000 ns | 0.0000 ns | 0.000 | 0.00 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| UseClass | 8.1425 ns | 0.1873 ns | 0.1839 ns | 1.000 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.0127 | - | - | 40 B |
| Use100Struct | 36.9359 ns | 0.4026 ns | 0.3569 ns | 4.548 | 0.12 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Use100Class | 759.3495 ns | 14.8029 ns | 17.0471 ns | 93.144 | 3.24 | 4 | 1.2751 | - | - | 4000 B |
| Use10000Struct | 3,002.1976 ns | 25.4853 ns | 22.5920 ns | 369.664 | 8.91 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| Use10000Class | 76,529.2751 ns | 1,570.9425 ns | 2,667.5795 ns | 9,440.182 | 346.76 | 6 | 127.4414 | - | - | 400000 B |
If an entity is going to be immutable, the question of whether to use a struct or a class will generally be one of performance rather than semantics. On a 32/64-bit system, class references require 4/8 bytes to store, regardless of the amount of information in the class; copying a class reference will require copying 4/8 bytes. On the other hand, every distinct class instance will have 8/16 bytes of overhead in addition to the information it holds and the memory cost of the references to it. Suppose one wants an array of 500 entities, each holding four 32-bit integers. If the entity is a structure type, the array will require 8,000 bytes regardless of whether all 500 entities are all identical, all different, or somewhere between. If the entity is a class type, the array of 500 references will take 4,000 bytes. If those references all point to different objects, the objects would require an additional 24 bytes each (12,000 bytes for all 500), a total of 16,000 bytes--twice the storage cost of a struct type. On the other hand, of the code created one object instance and then copied a reference to all 500 array slots, the total cost would be 24 bytes for that instance and 4,000 for the array--a total of 4,024 bytes. A major savings. Few situations would work out as well as the last one, but in some cases it may be possible to copy some references to enough array slots to make such sharing worthwhile.
If the entity is supposed to be mutable, the question of whether to use a class or struct is in some ways easier. Assume "Thing" is either a struct or class which has an integer field called x, and one does the following code:
Thing t1,t2; ... t2 = t1; t2.x = 5;
Does one want the latter statement to affect t1.x?
If Thing is a class type, t1 and t2 will be equivalent, meaning t1.x and t2.x will also be equivalent. Thus, the second statement will affect t1.x. If Thing is a structure type, t1 and t2 will be different instances, meaning t1.x and t2.x will refer to different integers. Thus, the second statement will not affect t1.x.
Mutable structures and mutable classes have fundamentally different behaviors, though .net has some quirks in its handling of struct mutations. If one wants value-type behavior (meaning that "t2=t1" will copy the data from t1 to t2 while leaving t1 and t2 as distinct instances), and if one can live with the quirks in .net's handling of value types, use a structure. If one wants value-type semantics but .net's quirks would cause lead to broken value-type semantics in one's application, use a class and mumble.
I have always used a struct when I wanted to group together a few values for passing things back from a method call, but I won't need to use it for anything after I have read those values. Just as a way to keep things clean. I tend to view things in a struct as "throwaway" and things in a class as more useful and "functional"
In addition the the excellent answers above:
Structures are value types.
They can never be set to Nothing.
Setting a structure = Nothing , will set all its values types to their default values.
✔️ CONSIDER defining a struct instead of a class if instances of the type are small and commonly short-lived or are commonly embedded in other objects.
when you don't really need behavior, but you need more structure than a simple array or dictionary.
Follow up This is how I think of structs in general. I know they can have methods, but I like keeping that overall mental distinction.
As @Simon said, structs provide "value-type" semantics so if you need similar behavior to a built-in data type, use a struct. Since structs are passed by copy you want to make sure they are small in size, about 16 bytes.
Structs are on the Stack not the Heap so therefore they are thread safe, and should be used when implementing the transfer object pattern, you never want to use objects on the Heap they are volatile, you want in this case to use the Call Stack, this is a basic case for using a struct I am surprised by all the way out answers here,
Hmm...
I wouldn't use garbage collection as an argument for/against the use of structs vs classes. The managed heap works much like a stack - creating an object just puts it at the top of the heap, which is almost as fast as allocating on the stack. Additionally, if an object is short-lived and does not survive a GC cycle, deallocation is free as the GC only works with memory that's still accessible. (Search MSDN, there's a series of articles on .NET memory management, I'm just too lazy to go dig for them).
Most of the time I use a struct, I wind up kicking myself for doing so, because I later discover that having reference semantics would have made things a bit simpler.
Anyway, those four points in the MSDN article posted above seems a good guideline.
I think the best answer is simply to use struct when what you need is a collection of properties, class when it's a collection of properties AND behaviors.
