The difference between struct and class is small in C++, basically only that struct members are per default public and class members are per default private.
However, I still use structs whenever I need pure data structures, for instance:
struct Rectangle {
int width;
int height;
};
I find that very convenient to work with:
Rectangle r;
r.width = 20;
r.height = 10;
However, data structures are from procedural programming, and I'm doing object oriented programming. Is it a bad idea to introduce this concept into OO?
No. If it makes sense to use a struct somewhere, why would you complicate things using something else that isn't meant to fit the purpose ?
In my projects, I tend to use struct for simple "structures" which just need to hold some trivial data.
If a data structure needs to have some "smartness" and hidden fields/methods, then it becomes a class.
structs are especially useful for POD (plain old data) encapsulation. There is a lot more on this at struct vs class in C++
In my opinion, no, this is not a bad idea. If you're going to use a class in the same fashion, like
class Rectangle {
public:
int width;
int height;
};
then you may as well use a struct. This will help make sure you're not forgetting to declare anything public, and if you keep it consistent, then future developers (including future you) will know that you intended this purely as a data object, not something to have methods within.
It's still pretty much an object from all usability perspectives, so no, it doesn't conflict with OO design.
If your application needs it, use it. If your design requires you to have just public members you can use struct itself...
I use structs all the time for objects like unary_function and such. There's really no point in having to explicitly declare public on a class with only an operator() method. Furthermore, it's not like you're inviting it to be inherited.
There is nothing wrong with using a struct in C++, I tend to avoid using classes unless I have ample time to plan out what their purpose should be.
I would prefer struct-like class. The first reason is to avoid uninitialized struct. The other reason is that you will be always able to add any convenience methods to the struct if wanted.
Sometimes using classes with constructors will be less performance efficient than using structs, particularly when copying large amounts of data around arrays. The reason being you can safely use functions such as memcpy to move large blocks of data around the place, whereas with a class your more likely to use an iterator and/or copy construtor.
See a previous question of mine for some further discussion on this.
It sounds like, you own a Ferrari Scaglietti and a Lamborgini Espada, sometime you drive Ferarri, sometime you drive Lamborghini....
Sometime you use struct, sometime you use class, is there any true and false?
I used to do the following:
struct Interface
{
virtual ~Interface() {}
virtual void foo() = 0;
};
class Implementation : public Interface
{
void foo(); // or public, it depends.
public:
Implementation(...);
};
since by default, interface have all their members public, and by default, implementations have their members private.
Related
This question already has answers here:
What are the differences between struct and class in C++?
(30 answers)
Closed 2 months ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last month and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
In what scenarios is it better to use a struct vs a class in C++?
The differences between a class and a struct in C++ are:
struct members and base classes/structs are public by default.
class members and base classes/structs are private by default.
Both classes and structs can have a mixture of public, protected and private members, can use inheritance, and can have member functions.
I would recommend you:
use struct for plain-old-data structures without any class-like features;
use class when you make use of features such as private or protected members, non-default constructors and operators, etc.
As everyone else notes there are really only two actual language differences:
struct defaults to public access and class defaults to private access.
When inheriting, struct defaults to public inheritance and class defaults to private inheritance. (Ironically, as with so many things in C++, the default is backwards: public inheritance is by far the more common choice, but people rarely declare structs just to save on typing the "public" keyword.
But the real difference in practice is between a class/struct that declares a constructor/destructor and one that doesn't. There are certain guarantees to a "plain-old-data" POD type, that no longer apply once you take over the class's construction. To keep this distinction clear, many people deliberately only use structs for POD types, and, if they are going to add any methods at all, use classes. The difference between the two fragments below is otherwise meaningless:
class X
{
public:
// ...
};
struct X
{
// ...
};
(Incidentally, here's a thread with some good explanations about what "POD type" actually means: What are POD types in C++?)
There are lots of misconceptions in the existing answers.
Both class and struct declare a class.
Yes, you may have to rearrange your access modifying keywords inside the class definition, depending on which keyword you used to declare the class.
But, beyond syntax, the only reason to choose one over the other is convention/style/preference.
Some people like to stick with the struct keyword for classes without member functions, because the resulting definition "looks like" a simple structure from C.
Similarly, some people like to use the class keyword for classes with member functions and private data, because it says "class" on it and therefore looks like examples from their favourite book on object-oriented programming.
The reality is that this completely up to you and your team, and it'll make literally no difference whatsoever to your program.
The following two classes are absolutely equivalent in every way except their name:
struct Foo
{
int x;
};
class Bar
{
public:
int x;
};
You can even switch keywords when redeclaring:
class Foo;
struct Bar;
(although this breaks Visual Studio builds due to non-conformance, so that compiler will emit a warning when you do this.)
and the following expressions both evaluate to true:
std::is_class<Foo>::value
std::is_class<Bar>::value
Do note, though, that you can't switch the keywords when redefining; this is only because (per the one-definition rule) duplicate class definitions across translation units must "consist of the same sequence of tokens". This means you can't even exchange const int member; with int const member;, and has nothing to do with the semantics of class or struct.
The only time I use a struct instead of a class is when declaring a functor right before using it in a function call and want to minimize syntax for the sake of clarity. e.g.:
struct Compare { bool operator() { ... } };
std::sort(collection.begin(), collection.end(), Compare());
From the C++ FAQ Lite:
The members and base classes of a struct are public by default, while in class, they default to private. Note: you should make your base classes explicitly public, private, or protected, rather than relying on the defaults.
struct and class are otherwise functionally equivalent.
OK, enough of that squeaky clean techno talk. Emotionally, most developers make a strong distinction between a class and a struct. A struct simply feels like an open pile of bits with very little in the way of encapsulation or functionality. A class feels like a living and responsible member of society with intelligent services, a strong encapsulation barrier, and a well defined interface. Since that's the connotation most people already have, you should probably use the struct keyword if you have a class that has very few methods and has public data (such things do exist in well designed systems!), but otherwise you should probably use the class keyword.
You can use "struct" in C++ if you are writing a library whose internals are C++ but the API can be called by either C or C++ code. You simply make a single header that contains structs and global API functions that you expose to both C and C++ code as this:
// C access Header to a C++ library
#ifdef __cpp
extern "C" {
#endif
// Put your C struct's here
struct foo
{
...
};
// NOTE: the typedef is used because C does not automatically generate
// a typedef with the same name as a struct like C++.
typedef struct foo foo;
// Put your C API functions here
void bar(foo *fun);
#ifdef __cpp
}
#endif
Then you can write a function bar() in a C++ file using C++ code and make it callable from C and the two worlds can share data through the declared struct's. There are other caveats of course when mixing C and C++ but this is a simplified example.
One place where a struct has been helpful for me is when I have a system that's receiving fixed format messages (over say, a serial port) from another system. You can cast the stream of bytes into a struct that defines your fields, and then easily access the fields.
typedef struct
{
int messageId;
int messageCounter;
int messageData;
} tMessageType;
void processMessage(unsigned char *rawMessage)
{
tMessageType *messageFields = (tMessageType *)rawMessage;
printf("MessageId is %d\n", messageFields->messageId);
}
Obviously, this is the same thing you would do in C, but I find that the overhead of having to decode the message into a class is usually not worth it.
As every one says, the only real difference is the default access. But I particularly use struct when I don't want any sort of encapsulation with a simple data class, even if I implement some helper methods. For instance, when I need something like this:
struct myvec {
int x;
int y;
int z;
int length() {return x+y+z;}
};
To answer my own question (shamelessly), As already mentioned, access privileges are the only difference between them in C++.
I tend to use a struct for data-storage only. I'll allow it to get a few helper functions if it makes working with the data easier. However as soon as the data requires flow control (i.e. getters/setters that maintain or protect an internal state) or starts acquring any major functionality (basically more object-like), it will get 'upgraded' to a class to better communicate intent.
For C++, there really isn't much of a difference between structs and classes. The main functional difference is that members of a struct are public by default, while they are private by default in classes. Otherwise, as far as the language is concerned, they are equivalent.
That said, I tend to use structs in C++ like I do in C#, similar to what Brian has said. Structs are simple data containers, while classes are used for objects that need to act on the data in addition to just holding on to it.
Structs (PODs, more generally) are handy when you're providing a C-compatible interface with a C++ implementation, since they're portable across language borders and linker formats.
If that's not a concern to you, then I suppose the use of the "struct" instead of "class" is a good communicator of intent (as #ZeroSignal said above). Structs also have more predictable copying semantics, so they're useful for data you intend to write to external media or send across the wire.
Structs are also handy for various metaprogramming tasks, like traits templates that just expose a bunch of dependent typedefs:
template <typename T> struct type_traits {
typedef T type;
typedef T::iterator_type iterator_type;
...
};
...But that's really just taking advantage of struct's default protection level being public...
As others have pointed out
both are equivalent apart from default visibility
there may be reasons to be forced to use the one or the other for whatever reason
There's a clear recommendation about when to use which from Stroustrup/Sutter:
Use class if the class has an invariant; use struct if the data members can vary independently
However, keep in mind that it is not wise to forward declare sth. as a class (class X;) and define it as struct (struct X { ... }).
It may work on some linkers (e.g., g++) and may fail on others (e.g., MSVC), so you will find yourself in developer hell.
Both struct and class are the same under the hood though with different defaults as to visibility, struct default is public and class default is private. You can change either one to be the other with the appropriate use of private and public. They both allow inheritance, methods, constructors, destructors, and all the rest of the goodies of an object oriented language.
However one huge difference between the two is that struct as a keyword is supported in C whereas class is not. This means that one can use a struct in an include file that can be #include into either C++ or C so long as the struct is a plain C style struct and everything else in the include file is compatible with C, i.e. no C++ specific keywords such as private, public, no methods, no inheritance, etc. etc. etc.
A C style struct can be used with other interfaces which support using C style struct to carry data back and forth over the interface.
A C style struct is a kind of template (not a C++ template but rather a pattern or stencil) that describes the layout of a memory area. Over the years interfaces usable from C and with C plug-ins (here's looking at you Java and Python and Visual Basic) have been created some of which work with C style struct.
An advantage of struct over class is that it save one line of code, if adhering to "first public members, then private". In this light, I find the keyword class useless.
Here is another reason for using only struct and never class. Some code style guidelines for C++ suggest using small letters for function macros, the rationale being that when the macro is converted to an inline function, the name shouldn't need to be changed. Same here. You have your nice C-style struct and one day, you find out you need to add a constructor, or some convenience method. Do you change it to a class? Everywhere?
Distinguishing between structs and classes is just too much hassle getting into the way of doing what we should be doing - programming. Like so many of C++'s problems it arises out of the strong desire for backwards compatibility.
They are pretty much the same thing. Thanks to the magic of C++, a struct can hold functions, use inheritance, created using "new" and so on just like a class
The only functional difference is that a class begins with private access rights, while a struct begins with public. This is the maintain backwards compatibility with C.
In practice, I've always used structs as data holders and classes as objects.
Class.
Class members are private by default.
class test_one {
int main_one();
};
Is equivalent to
class test_one {
private:
int main_one();
};
So if you try
int two = one.main_one();
We will get an error: main_one is private because its not accessible. We can
solve it by initializing it by specifying its a public ie
class test_one {
public:
int main_one();
};
Struct.
A struct is a class where members are public by default.
struct test_one {
int main_one;
};
Means main_one is private ie
class test_one {
public:
int main_one;
};
I use structs for data structures where the members can take any value, it's
easier that way.
After years of programming in C++, my main language, I come to the dead conclusion that this is another one of C++ dumb feature.
There is no real difference between the two, and no reason why I should spend extra time deciding whether I should define my entity as a struct or a class.
To answer this question, feel free to always define your entity as a struct. Members will be public by default which is the norm. But even more importantly, inheritance will be public by default. Protected inheritance, and even worse, private inheritance, are the exceptions.
I have never had a case where private inheritance was the right thing to do. Yes I tried to invent problems to use private inheritance but it didn't work. And Java, the role model of Object Oriented programming defaults to public inheritance if you don't use the accessor keywords. And by the way, Java doesn't allow accessor keywords on inherited classes, they can only be publicly inherited. So you can see, the cpp team really fell down here.
Another frustrating thing about this, is that if you define as a class and declare as a struct you get compilation warning. As though this is something that impacted the performance or accuracy of your program. One answer also noted that MSVC may propogate a compiler error instead.
Those persons that use classes when it is raining and structs when it is shining are doing so based on what they have been taught. It's not something they discovered to be true. Java does not have a pair of names for classes, and only have the class keyword. If you want a data structure, simply make all your members public and don't add functions. This works in Java and I don't see any problem. What's the problem? You need 4 or 5 characters of BOM code to determine how to interpret the context of a class entity.
they're the same thing with different defaults (private by default for class, and public by default for struct), so in theory they're totally interchangeable.
so, if I just want to package some info to move around, I use a struct, even if i put a few methods there (but not many). If it's a mostly-opaque thing, where the main use would be via methods, and not directly to the data members, i use a full class.
Structs by default have public access and classes by default have private access.
Personally I use structs for Data Transfer Objects or as Value Objects. When used as such I declare all members as const to prevent modification by other code.
Just to address this from a C++20 Standardese perspective (working from N4860)...
A class is a type. The keywords "class" and "struct" (and "union") are - in the C++ grammar - class-keys, and the only functional significance of the choice of class or struct is:
The class-key determines whether ... access is public or private by default (11.9).
Data member default accessibility
That the class keyword results in private-by-default members, and `struct keyword results in public-by-default members, is documented by the examples in 11.9.1:
class X {
int a; // X::a is private by default: class used
...vs...
struct S {
int a; // S::a is public by default: struct used
Base class default accessibility
1.9 also says:
In the absence of an access-specifier for a base class, public is assumed when the derived class is defined with the class-key struct and private is assumed when the class is defined with the class-key class.
Circumstances where consistent use of struct or class is required...
There's a requirement:
In a redeclaration, partial specialization, explicit specialization or explicit instantiation of a class template, the class-key shall agree in kind with the original class template declaration (9.2.8.3).
...in any elaborated-type-specifier, the enum keyword shall be used to refer to an enumeration (9.7.1), the union class-key shall be used to refer to a union (11.5), and either the class or struct class-key shall be
used to refer to a non-union class (11.1).
The following example (of when consistency is not required) is provided:
struct S { } s;
class S* p = &s; // OK
Still, some compilers may warn about this.
Interestingly, while the types you create with struct, class and union are all termed "classes", we have...
A standard-layout struct is a standard layout class defined with the class-key struct or the class-key class.
...so in Standardese, when there's talk of a standard-layout struct it's using "struct" to imply "not a union"s.
I'm curious if there are similar use of "struct" in other terminology, but it's too big a job to do an exhaustive search of the Standard. Comments about that welcome.
Technically both are the same in C++ - for instance it's possible for a struct to have overloaded operators etc.
However :
I use structs when I wish to pass information of multiple types simultaneously
I use classes when the I'm dealing with a "functional" object.
Hope it helps.
#include <string>
#include <map>
using namespace std;
struct student
{
int age;
string name;
map<string, int> grades
};
class ClassRoom
{
typedef map<string, student> student_map;
public :
student getStudentByName(string name) const
{ student_map::const_iterator m_it = students.find(name); return m_it->second; }
private :
student_map students;
};
For instance, I'm returning a struct student in the get...() methods over here - enjoy.
When would you choose to use struct
and when to use class in C++?
I use struct when I define functors and POD. Otherwise I use class.
// '()' is public by default!
struct mycompare : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool>
{
bool operator()(int first, int second)
{ return first < second; }
};
class mycompare : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool>
{
public:
bool operator()(int first, int second)
{ return first < second; }
};
I use structs when I need to create POD type or functor.
All class members are private by default and all struct members are public by default.
Class has default private bases and Struct has default public bases. Struct in case of C cannot have member functions where as in case of C++ we can have member functions being added to the struct. Other than these differences, I don't find anything surprising about them.
I use struct only when I need to hold some data without any member functions associated to it (to operate on the member data) and to access the data variables directly.
Eg: Reading/Writing data from files and socket streams etc. Passing function arguments in a structure where the function arguments are too many and function syntax looks too lengthy.
Technically there is no big difference between class and struture except default accessibility.
More over it depends on programming style how you use it.
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I thought that Structs was intended as a Data Structure (like a multi-data type array of information) and classes was inteded for Code Packaging (like collections of subroutines & functions)..
:(
I never use "struct" in C++.
I can't ever imagine a scenario where you would use a struct when you want private members, unless you're willfully trying to be confusing.
It seems that using structs is more of a syntactic indication of how the data will be used, but I'd rather just make a class and try to make that explicit in the name of the class, or through comments.
E.g.
class PublicInputData {
//data members
};
I am not very familiar with C++ , and while I am trying some test programms I came to a question regarding the best if I may say so way to define some primitive elements in C++ code.
Let's take a class that describes rectangles. It would create them, draw them , rotate, resize, etc... now in most cases we have to deal with points on the canvas.
The rectangle its self is described by 2 points: Upper Left and Lower Right corner.
Also in order to Rotate it, you need an angle, and a point(anchor point).
Or maybe to move it you need a new anchor point for the given rectangle. I guess I made my point in using points .
So what is more efficient ? to define this primitive point as a class or as a struct?
class cPoint
{
public:
int X;
int Y;
};
or
typedef struct
{
int X;
int Y;
}sPoint;
Niether are more efficient. On a technical level, there is no difference between a class and a struct aside from default visibility of members (public in struct, private in class) and default inheritance model (public in struct, private in class).
They typedef struct {} name model is not idiomatic in C++. In fact, it's an abomination -- a holdover from C. Don't use this model. Use this struct name {}; instead. Using the typedef struct {} name; model doesn't gain you anything in C++ (it was needed in C), and may cost you sojmething in terms of maintainability. For instance, it might be harder to grep for typedef struct declarations. But since it doesn't gain you anything by doing this, there's no compelling reason not to simply do struct name {}; in C++.
Aside from technical issues, the differences between struct and class are semantic ones. It is traditional and expected that objects declared as structs are simple objects which consist of only public: data members (so-called PODs). If it has private or protected data, is expected to be derived from, or has any methods, it is declared as a class.
This guideline is open to interpretation, and is just that -- a guideline. There is nothing to prevent you from declaring an abstract base class as a struct, for example. However you may want to consider following this guideline in order to follow the Principle of Least Surprise, making your code easier to understand and maintain.
Both are nearly equivalent. More precisely, struct { is the same as class {public:
An optimizing compiler would probably generate exactly the same code. Use MELT or simply pass -fdump-tree-all (beware, that option produces hundreds of dump files) to g++ (assuming you use a recent GCC compiler) -preferably with some optimization like -O - to find out (or look at the produced assembler code with g++ -O -fverbose-asm -S ...)
typedef struct is actually the C way to do this. In C++ the two versions would look very similar: Your class as written, and the struct as follows:
struct sPoint
{
int X;
int Y;
};
The two forms are functionally identical but you can provide your future maintainers with significant information by picking and sticking to some convention about how they're used. For example one approach is that if you intend to make the data elements private and give it useful methods (for example if you use inline accessors you can insert print calls every time the methods are used) then by all means make it a class. If you intend to have the data be public and access them as members then make it a struct.
There's no performance difference between a class and a struct
A class defaults to private access, whilst a struct defaults to public access. If interoperability with C is an issue for you then you'll have to use struct, and obviously it can't have any member functions.
As an aside, there's no std::is_struct in the standard library. Instead the std::is_class method returns true if the type is a class or a structure.
Simply put, the first way is more C++, and the second way is more C. Both work, while the first way is more 'standard' now.
A struct in C++ is like a class that would have public members by default*
There is no other formal difference, though your code would probably look confusing if you started using structs as classes, especially the inheritance mechanisms where data privacy is a major benefit.
If you are about to declare private/protected members, there is really little point in using a struct, though your code will still be 100% legal.
*including inherited members, since the zealots and nitpickers around seem to think the point is of a capital importance and only ignorant heatens would fail to mention it.
Except for the fact that this fine doctrine point is defined (or rather hinted, since the inference that base classes are simply defining inherited members is left to the sagacity of the reader) in another verse of the Stoustrup Holy Bible, there is really nothing to fuss about IMHO.
To properly declare the struct in your example, use
struct sPoint {
int X;
int Y;
};
In general, structs and classes in C++ are identical, except that data is public in a struct by default. The other difference is that the struct keyword cannot be used as the type in a template, although a struct can be used as the parameter.
There is a more thorough discussion here: C++ - struct vs. class
technically, struct{} and class{} are the same.
they differ on semantic level, with different member visibility.
struct{...} is equivalent to class{public:...}
And, it is also legal to declare a class using struct keyword. (add member functions, access specifier to struct{})
Generally, using struct for Plain-Old-Data (POD) type, class for Object-Oriented type to improve readability.
typedef struct{} should only be used to hide implementation detail(eg: supply a close-source library to users)
From my opinion, in your case, using struct is better, because Point's member need to be modified directly by other code.
I have about 15~20 member variables which needs to be accessed, I was wondering
if it would be good just to let them be public instead of giving every one of them
get/set functions.
The code would be something like
class A { // a singleton class
public:
static A* get();
B x, y, z;
// ... a lot of other object that should only have one copy
// and doesn't change often
private:
A();
virtual ~A();
static A* a;
};
I have also thought about putting the variables into an array, but I don't
know the best way to do a lookup table, would it be better to put them in an array?
EDIT:
Is there a better way than Singleton class to put them in a collection
The C++ world isn't quite as hung up on "everything must be hidden behind accessors/mutators/whatever-they-decide-to-call-them-todays" as some OO-supporting languages.
With that said, it's a bit hard to say what the best approach is, given your limited description.
If your class is simply a 'bag of data' for some other process, than using a struct instead of a class (the only difference is that all members default to public) can be appropriate.
If the class actually does something, however, you might find it more appropriate to group your get/set routines together by function/aspect or interface.
As I mentioned, it's a bit hard to tell without more information.
EDIT: Singleton classes are not smelly code in and of themselves, but you do need to be a bit careful with them. If a singleton is taking care of preference data or something similar, it only makes sense to make individual accessors for each data element.
If, on the other hand, you're storing generic input data in a singleton, it might be time to rethink the design.
You could place them in a POD structure and provide access to an object of that type :
struct VariablesHolder
{
int a;
float b;
char c[20];
};
class A
{
public:
A() : vh()
{
}
VariablesHolder& Access()
{
return vh;
}
const VariablesHolder& Get() const
{
return vh;
}
private:
VariablesHolder vh;
};
No that wouldn't be good. Image you want to change the way they are accessed in the future. For example remove one member variable and let the get/set functions compute its value.
It really depends on why you want to give access to them, how likely they are to change, how much code uses them, how problematic having to rewrite or recompile that code is, how fast access needs to be, whether you need/want virtual access, what's more convenient and intuitive in the using code etc.. Wanting to give access to so many things may be a sign of poor design, or it may be 100% appropriate. Using get/set functions has much more potential benefit for volatile (unstable / possibly subject to frequent tweaks) low-level code that could be used by a large number of client apps.
Given your edit, an array makes sense if your client is likely to want to access the values in a loop, or a numeric index is inherently meaningful. For example, if they're chronologically ordered data samples, an index sounds good. Summarily, arrays make it easier to provide algorithms to work with any or all of the indices - you have to consider whether that's useful to your clients; if not, try to avoid it as it may make it easier to mistakenly access the wrong values, particularly if say two people branch some code, add an extra value at the end, then try to merge their changes. Sometimes it makes sense to provide arrays and named access, or an enum with meaningful names for indices.
This is a horrible design choice, as it allows any component to modify any of these variables. Furthermore, since access to these variables is done directly, you have no way to impose any invariant on the values, and if suddenly you decide to multithread your program, you won't have a single set of functions that need to be mutex-protected, but rather you will have to go off and find every single use of every single data member and individually lock those usages. In general, one should:
Not use singletons or global variables; they introduce subtle, implicit dependencies between components that allow seemingly independent components to interfere with each other.
Make variables const wherever possible and provide setters only where absolutely required.
Never make variables public (unless you are creating a POD struct, and even then, it is best to create POD structs only as an internal implementation detail and not expose them in the API).
Also, you mentioned that you need to use an array. You can use vector<B> or vector<B*> to create a dynamically-sized array of objects of type B or type B*. Rather than using A::getA() to access your singleton instance; it would be better to have functions that need type A to take a parameter of type const A&. This will make the dependency explicit, and it will also limit which functions can modify the members of that class (pass A* or A& to functions that need to mutate it).
As a convention, if you want a data structure to hold several public fields (plain old data), I would suggest using a struct (and use in tandem with other classes -- builder, flyweight, memento, and other design patterns).
Classes generally mean that you're defining an encapsulated data type, so the OOP rule is to hide data members.
In terms of efficiency, modern compilers optimize away calls to accessors/mutators, so the impact on performance would be non-existent.
In terms of extensibility, methods are definitely a win because derived classes would be able to override these (if virtual). Another benefit is that logic to check/observe/notify data can be added if data is accessed via member functions.
Public members in a base class is generally a difficult to keep track of.
When should I use a struct instead of a class? I'm currently using classes for everything from OpenGL texture wrappers to bitmap fonts.
Is a class that I use just like a struct (no making usage of inheritance, polymorphism, etc.) still slower than a struct?
Structs and classes in C++ as you may know differ solely by their default access level (and default accessibility of their bases: public for struct, private for class).
Some developers, including myself prefer to use structs for POD-types, that is, with C-style structs, with no virtual functions, bases etc. Structs should not have behavior - they are just a comglomerate of data put into one object.
But that is naturally a matter of style, and obviously neither is slower
1) There is no real difference between the 2 other than the fact that struct members are, by default, public where classes are private.
2) No its EXACTLY the same.
Edit: Bear in mind you can use virtual inheritance with structs. They are THAT identical :)
Instead of cheaping out and referring to other questions, I'll re-iterate what others have said before I add on to them.
struct and class are identical in C++, the only exception being that struct has a default access of public, and class has a default access of private. Performance and language feature support are identical.
Idiomatically, though, struct is mostly used for "dumb" classes (plain-old-data). class is used more to embody a true class.
In addition, I've also used struct for locally defined function objects, such as:
struct something
{
something() : count(0) { }
void operator()(int value) { std::cout << value << "-" << count++ << "\n"; }
int count;
} doSomething;
std::vector<int> values;
...
std::foreach(values.begin(); values.end(); doSomething);
as others have explained, they're the same thing except for default access levels.
the only reason why classes can be perceived to be slower is because a good style (but not the only one) is the one mentioned by ArmenTsirunyan: struct for POD types, class for full-fledged object classes. The latter ones usually include inheritance and virtual methods, hence vtables, which are slightly slower to call than straight functions.
I like to use classes when I need to have an explicit destructor. Because then, you should be following the rule of three, in which case you need to write a copy constructer and assignment overloader. With all of this, it seems more natural to use a class than a struct.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 14 years ago.
When should someone use structs instead of classes or vice versa in C++? I find myself using structs when a full-blown class managing some information seems like overkill but want to indicate the information being contained are all related. I was wondering what are some good guidelines to be able to tell when one is more appropriate than the other?
Edit:
Found these links while reading the material Stack Overflow indicated was related after the question was submitted:
When should you use a class vs a struct in C++?
What are the differences between struct and class in C++?
Technically, the only difference between the two is that structs are public: by default and classes are private:
Other than that, there is no technical difference.
struct vs class then becomes a purely expressive nuance of the language.
Usually, you avoid putting complicated methods in a struct, and most of the time structs data members will stay public. In a class you want to enforce strong encapsulation.
struct = data is public, with very simple helper methods
class = strongly encapsulated, data is modified / accessed only through methods
I use structs for simple containers of types that provide no constructors or operators.
Classes for everything else.
Use a struct when you simply need a "bucket of stuff" that doesn't have logical invariants that you need to keep. Use a class for anything else.
See also what the C++ FAQ says on the subject.
Use a class if you have methods, a struct if not.
A class should hide all its internals only exposing methods or properties. A struct tends to expose all its internals and has no accessor methods.
Where only one bit of code is accessing some (related) data, a struct may be perfectly reasonable. Where multiple bits of code need to modify the data or if it's anything slightly complicated, a class would be a better bet.
The difference between Classes and Structs are that structs are groups of variables and classes represent objects. Objects have attributes AND methods and be part of a hierarchy.
If you're using C++ to take advantage of the OO capabilities it's best to use classes / objects which are more natural.
I always use class, even for just containers, for consistency. Its purely a choice of style since the difference between the two is negligible.
If you need to control access to the data, you should use classes. If you don't care who is accessing what, and what they're storing in there, then a struct is probably more appropriate.
Also, a class is more appropriate if you need to do any checks on the integrity of the data itself.
See existing questions:
What are the differences between struct and class in C++
When should you use a class vs a struct in C++?
Personally, I use structs when all I need is a container for data (no member functions).
Otherwise, I use classes.
The only time I make an exception to that rule is if I need a simple functor: e.g.
struct compare { bool operator() { ... } };
sort(v.begin(), v.end(), compare());
The need for a public: label would just clutter up the code unnecessarity.
structs in C++ are classes with a default access method of public, so technically other than that default there is no difference and you can use both equivalently.
Yet there are some expectations and natural tendencies, in part because structs in C++ come from C.
My approach: If it has any private data, a constructor/destructor, or any complex member functions (which do more than just conversion upon set/get, etc.), use class.