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。

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.

当您希望能够对多个类型使用单个变量，但所有这些类型通过接口声明实现相同的方法时，Jimmy是正确的。然后你可以在接口类型变量上调用它们的main方法。

然而，使用接口还有第二个原因。当项目架构师和实现编码员是不同的人时，或者有几个实现编码员和一个项目经理。负责人可以编写一大堆接口，并查看系统的互操作，然后让开发人员用实现类填充接口。这是确保多人编写兼容类的最佳方法，而且他们可以并行地完成。

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。

假设你想要模拟当你试图睡觉时可能发生的烦恼。

接口前的模型

class Mosquito {
    void flyAroundYourHead(){}
}

class Neighbour{
    void startScreaming(){}
}

class LampJustOutsideYourWindow(){
    void shineJustThroughYourWindow() {}
}

正如你清楚地看到的，当你试图睡觉时，许多“事情”都可能令人讨厌。

使用没有接口的类

但是在使用这些类时，我们遇到了一个问题。他们毫无共同之处。您必须分别调用每个方法。

class TestAnnoyingThings{
    void testAnnoyingThinks(Mosquito mosquito, Neighbour neighbour, LampJustOutsideYourWindow lamp){
         if(mosquito != null){
             mosquito.flyAroundYourHead();
         }
         if(neighbour!= null){
             neighbour.startScreaming();
         }
         if(lamp!= null){
             lamp.shineJustThroughYourWindow();
         }
    }
}

带有接口的模型

为了克服这个问题，我们可以引入一个iterface

interface Annoying{
   public void annoy();

}

并在类中实现它

class Mosquito implements Annoying {
    void flyAroundYourHead(){}

    void annoy(){
        flyAroundYourHead();
    }
}

class Neighbour implements Annoying{
    void startScreaming(){}

    void annoy(){
        startScreaming();
    }
}

class LampJustOutsideYourWindow implements Annoying{
    void shineJustThroughYourWindow() {}

    void annoy(){
        shineJustThroughYourWindow();
    }
}

接口使用

这将使这些类的使用更容易

class TestAnnoyingThings{
    void testAnnoyingThinks(Annoying annoying){
        annoying.annoy();
    }
}