Using interfaces is a key factor in making your code easily testable in addition to removing unnecessary couplings between your classes. By creating an interface that defines the operations on your class, you allow classes that want to use that functionality the ability to use it without depending on your implementing class directly. If later on you decide to change and use a different implementation, you need only change the part of the code where the implementation is instantiated. The rest of the code need not change because it depends on the interface, not the implementing class.

This is very useful in creating unit tests. In the class under test you have it depend on the interface and inject an instance of the interface into the class (or a factory that allows it to build instances of the interface as needed) via the constructor or a property settor. The class uses the provided (or created) interface in its methods. When you go to write your tests, you can mock or fake the interface and provide an interface that responds with data configured in your unit test. You can do this because your class under test deals only with the interface, not your concrete implementation. Any class implementing the interface, including your mock or fake class, will do.

编辑:下面是一篇文章的链接，其中Erich Gamma讨论了他的引用，“面向接口编程，而不是面向实现编程。”

http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/designprinciples.html

假设你有一个名为“Zebra”的产品，可以通过插件进行扩展。它通过在某个目录中搜索dll来查找插件。它加载所有这些dll，并使用反射来查找实现IZebraPlugin的任何类，然后调用该接口的方法来与插件通信。

这使得它完全独立于任何特定的插件类——它不关心类是什么。它只关心它们是否满足接口规范。

接口是这样定义可扩展性点的一种方式。与接口对话的代码是松散耦合的——事实上，它与任何其他特定的代码根本不耦合。它可以与多年后由从未见过原始开发人员的人编写的插件进行互操作。

你可以使用一个带有虚函数的基类——所有的插件都是从基类派生的。但这有很大的限制，因为一个类只能有一个基类，而它可以实现任意数量的接口。

我是这个问题的后来者，但我想在这里提到的是，在GoF (Gang of Four)设计模式一书中，“为接口编程，而不是为实现编程”这一行有一些很好的讨论。

它在第18页说:

针对接口编程，而不是针对实现编程 不要将变量声明为特定具体类的实例。相反，只提交到由抽象类定义的接口。你会发现这是本书设计模式的一个共同主题。

在此之上，它是这样开始的:

仅根据抽象类定义的接口来操作对象有两个好处: 客户端仍然不知道他们使用的对象的具体类型，只要对象遵循客户端期望的接口。 客户端仍然不知道实现这些对象的类。客户端只知道定义接口的抽象类。

So in other words, don't write it your classes so that it has a quack() method for ducks, and then a bark() method for dogs, because they are too specific for a particular implementation of a class (or subclass). Instead, write the method using names that are general enough to be used in the base class, such as giveSound() or move(), so that they can be used for ducks, dogs, or even cars, and then the client of your classes can just say .giveSound() rather than thinking about whether to use quack() or bark() or even determine the type before issuing the correct message to be sent to the object.

面向接口编程非常棒，它促进了松耦合。正如@lassevk提到的，控制反转是一个很好的应用。

此外，研究SOLID原则。这是一个系列视频

它通过硬编码(强耦合示例)，然后查看接口，最后进展到IoC/DI工具(NInject)。

面向接口而不是实现的代码与Java无关，也与它的接口构造无关。

这个概念是在模式/四人帮的书中突出的，但很可能在那之前就已经存在了。这个概念在Java出现之前就已经存在了。

Java Interface构造的创建就是为了帮助实现这一想法(以及其他一些事情)，人们过于关注作为意义中心的构造，而不是最初的意图。然而，这也是为什么我们在Java、c++、c#等语言中有公共和私有方法和属性的原因。

It means just interact with an object or system's public interface. Don't worry or even anticipate how it does what it does internally. Don't worry about how it is implemented. In object-oriented code, it is why we have public vs. private methods/attributes. We are intended to use the public methods because the private methods are there only for use internally, within the class. They make up the implementation of the class and can be changed as required without changing the public interface. Assume that regarding functionality, a method on a class will perform the same operation with the same expected result every time you call it with the same parameters. It allows the author to change how the class works, its implementation, without breaking how people interact with it.

And you can program to the interface, not the implementation without ever using an Interface construct. You can program to the interface not the implementation in C++, which does not have an Interface construct. You can integrate two massive enterprise systems much more robustly as long as they interact through public interfaces (contracts) rather than calling methods on objects internal to the systems. The interfaces are expected to always react the same expected way given the same input parameters; if implemented to the interface and not the implementation. The concept works in many places.

不要认为Java接口与“面向接口编程，而不是面向实现”的概念有什么关系。它们可以帮助应用概念，但它们不是概念。

If you program in Java, JDBC is a good example. JDBC defines a set of interfaces but says nothing about the implementation. Your applications can be written against this set of interfaces. In theory, you pick some JDBC driver and your application would just work. If you discover there's a faster or "better" or cheaper JDBC driver or for whatever reason, you can again in theory re-configure your property file, and without having to make any change in your application, your application would still work.