当您希望定义对象可以显示的行为时，通常会使用接口。

在. net世界中，一个很好的例子是IDisposable接口，它用于任何使用必须手动释放的系统资源的Microsoft类。它要求实现它的类具有Dispose()方法。

Dispose()方法也被VB的using语言构造调用。NET和c#，只适用于IDisposables)

请记住，您可以通过使用诸如TypeOf…之类的构造来检查对象是否实现了特定的接口。Is (VB.NET)， Is (c#)， instanceof (Java)，等等…

作为一个。net开发人员，你完全有可能一辈子都不编写自己的接口。毕竟，没有它们，我们也活了几十年，我们的语言仍然是图灵完备的。

我不能告诉你为什么你需要接口，但我可以给你一个我们在当前项目中使用它们的列表:

在我们的插件模型中，我们通过接口加载插件，并将该接口提供给插件编写者以使其遵循。 在我们的机间消息传递系统中，消息类都实现了一个特定的接口，并使用该接口“解包装”。 我们的配置管理系统定义了一个用于设置和检索配置设置的接口。 我们使用一个接口来避免讨厌的循环引用问题。(如果没有必要，就不要这样做。)

我想如果有一个规则，那就是当你想在一个is-a关系中对几个类进行分组，但你不想在基类中提供任何实现时使用接口。

我喜欢军队的比喻。

中士不在乎你是软件开发人员、音乐家还是律师。 你被当作士兵对待。

对于中士来说，不去操心与他一起工作的人的具体细节更容易， 把每个人都当作抽象的士兵(…如果他们表现得不像孩子，就要惩罚他们)。

人们像士兵一样行动的能力被称为多态性。

接口是帮助实现多态的软件结构。

为了实现简单，需要抽象细节，这就是你问题的答案。

Polymorphism, which etymologically means "many forms," is the ability to treat an object of any subclass of a base class as if it were an object of the base class. A base class has, therefore, many forms: the base class itself, and any of its subclasses. (..) This makes your code easier for you to write and easier for others to understand. It also makes your code extensible, because other subclasses could be added later to the family of types, and objects of those new subclasses would also work with the existing code.

假设你正在制作一款第一人称射击游戏。玩家有多种枪可供选择。

我们可以有一个接口Gun，它定义了函数shoot()。

我们需要不同的子类枪类，即霰弹枪狙击手等。

ShotGun implements Gun{
    public void shoot(){
       \\shotgun implementation of shoot.
    } 
}

Sniper implements Gun{
    public void shoot(){
       \\sniper implementation of shoot.
    } 
}

射击类

射手把所有的枪都装在他的盔甲里。让我们创建一个List来表示它。

List<Gun> listOfGuns = new ArrayList<Gun>();

射手在需要时使用switchGun()函数循环使用他的枪。

public void switchGun(){
    //code to cycle through the guns from the list of guns.
    currentGun = //the next gun in the list.
}

我们可以使用上面的函数设置当前的Gun，当调用fire()时，简单地调用shoot()函数。

public void fire(){
    currentGun.shoot();
}

shoot函数的行为将根据Gun接口的不同实现而有所不同。

结论

当一个类函数依赖于来自另一个类的函数时，创建一个接口，而另一个类根据实现的类的实例(对象)改变其行为。

例如，Shooter类的fire()函数期望枪械(Sniper, ShotGun)实现shoot()函数。 所以如果我们换枪开火。

shooter.switchGun();
shooter.fire();

我们已经改变了fire()函数的行为。

I like Jimmy's answer a lot, but I feel I need to add something to it. The key to the whole thing is the "able" in IProcessable . It indicates a capability (or property, but meaning "intrinsic quality", not in the sense of C# properties) of the object that implements the interface. IAnimal is probably not a good example for an interface, but IWalkable might be a good interface to have if your system has many things that can walk. You might have classes derived from Animal such as Dog, Cow, Fish, Snake. The first two would probably implement IWalkable, the latter two don't walk, so they wouldn't. Now you ask "why not just have another superclass, WalkingAnimal, that Dog and Cow derive from?". The answer is when you have something completely outside the inheritance tree that also can walk, such as a robot. Robot would implement IWalkable, but probably wouldn't derive from Animal. If you want a list of things that can walk, you type it as IWalkable and you can put all walking animals plus robots in the list.

现在，将IWalkable替换为IPersistable这样更像软件的东西，这样的类比就更接近你在实际程序中看到的情况了。

In my experience the driving force to create interfaces didn't occur until I start doing unit testing with a mocking framework. It became abundantly clear that using interfaces was going to make mocking much easier (since the framework depended on the methods being virtual). Once I started I saw the value of abstracting away the interface to my class from the implementation. Even if I don't create an actual interface, I try now to make my methods virtual (providing an implicit interface that can be overridden).

我发现还有许多其他原因可以加强重构到接口的良好实践，但是单元测试/模拟的事情提供了最初的“顿悟时刻”的实践经验。

EDIT: To clarify, with unit testing and mocking I always have two implementations -- the real, concrete implementation and an alternate mock implementation used in testing. Once you have two implementations, the value of the interface becomes obvious -- deal with it in terms of the interface so you can replace the implementation at any time. In this case I'm replacing it with a mock interface. I know that I can do this without an actual interface if my class is constructed properly, but using an actual interface reinforces this and makes it cleaner (clearer to the reader). Without this impetus, I don't think I would have appreciated the value of interfaces since most of my classes only, ever have a single concrete implementation.