为一个接口编程就是在说:“我需要这个功能，我不在乎它来自哪里。”

Consider (in Java), the List interface versus the ArrayList and LinkedList concrete classes. If all I care about is that I have a data structure containing multiple data items that I should access via iteration, I'd pick a List (and that's 99% of the time). If I know that I need constant-time insert/delete from either end of the list, I might pick the LinkedList concrete implementation (or more likely, use the Queue interface). If I know I need random access by index, I'd pick the ArrayList concrete class.

前面的回答主要关注为了可扩展性和松耦合而对抽象进行编程。虽然这些都很重要， 可读性同样重要。可读性允许其他人(以及您未来的自己)以最小的努力理解代码。这就是可读性利用抽象的原因。

根据定义，抽象比实现更简单。抽象省略了细节以传达事物的本质或目的，仅此而已。 由于抽象更简单，与实现相比，我可以一次在脑海中容纳更多的抽象。

作为一名程序员(使用任何语言)，我的脑海中始终有一个List的大致概念。特别是，List允许随机访问、重复元素并保持顺序。当我看到这样的声明:List myList = new ArrayList()我想，很酷，这是一个以我理解的(基本)方式使用的List;我就不用再想了

On the other hand, I do not carry around the specific implementation details of ArrayList in my head. So when I see, ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(). I think, uh-oh, this ArrayList must be used in a way that isn't covered by the List interface. Now I have to track down all the usages of this ArrayList to understand why, because otherwise I won't be able to fully understand this code. It gets even more confusing when I discover that 100% of the usages of this ArrayList do conform to the List interface. Then I'm left wondering... was there some code relying on ArrayList implementation details that got deleted? Was the programmer who instantiated it just incompetent? Is this application locked into that specific implementation in some way at runtime? A way that I don't understand?

我现在对这个应用程序感到困惑和不确定，我们所讨论的只是一个简单的List。如果这是一个忽略其接口的复杂业务对象呢?那么我的业务领域知识不足以理解代码的目的。

因此，即使当我在私有方法中严格需要List时(如果它改变了，不会破坏其他应用程序，并且我可以很容易地找到/替换IDE中的每个用法)，它仍然有利于编程到抽象的可读性。因为抽象比实现细节更简单。您可以说，对抽象进行编程是遵循KISS原则的一种方式。

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。

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。

下面是一个简单的示例，用于说明如何对航班预订系统进行编程。

//This interface is very flexible and abstract
    addPassenger(Plane seat, Ticket ticket); 

//Boeing is implementation of Plane
    addPassenger(Boeing747 seat, EconomyTicket ticket); 
    addPassenger(Cessna, BusinessClass ticket);


    addPassenger(J15, E87687);