以下是你的例子:

public interface IFood // not Pizza
{
    public void Prepare();

}

public class Pizza : IFood
{
    public void Prepare() // Not order for explanations sake
    {
        //Prepare Pizza
    }
}

public class Burger : IFood
{
    public void Prepare()
    {
        //Prepare Burger
    }
}

To me an advantage/benefit of an interface is that it is more flexible than an abstract class. Since you can only inherit 1 abstract class but you can implement multiple interfaces, changes to a system that inherits an abstract class in many places becomes problematic. If it is inherited in 100 places, a change requires changes to all 100. But, with the interface, you can place the new change in a new interface and just use that interface where its needed (Interface Seq. from SOLID). Additionally, the memory usage seems like it would be less with the interface as an object in the interface example is used just once in memory despite how many places implement the interface.

接口实际上是实现类必须遵循的契约，它实际上是我所知道的几乎所有设计模式的基础。

在您的示例中，创建接口是因为这样就保证实现了比萨饼接口的is A Pizza

public void Order();

在你提到的代码之后，你可以这样写:

public void orderMyPizza(IPizza myPizza) {
//This will always work, because everyone MUST implement order
      myPizza.order();
}

这样您使用的是多态性，您所关心的只是对象对order()做出响应。

对我来说，刚开始的时候，只有当你不再把它们看作是让你的代码更容易/更快编写的东西时，它们的意义才变得清晰——这不是它们的目的。它们有很多用途:

(这里就没有披萨的比喻了，因为这个比喻的用法不太容易想象)

假设你正在屏幕上制作一款简单的游戏，游戏中会有与你互动的生物。

答:通过在前端和后端实现之间引入松散耦合，它们可以使您的代码在将来更容易维护。

你可以这样写，因为这里只会有喷子:

// This is our back-end implementation of a troll
class Troll
{
    void Walk(int distance)
    {
        //Implementation here
    }
}

前端:

function SpawnCreature()
{
    Troll aTroll = new Troll();
    
    aTroll.Walk(1);
}

两周后，市场营销决定你也需要半兽人，因为他们在twitter上看到了他们，所以你必须做如下事情:

class Orc
{
    void Walk(int distance)
    {
        //Implementation (orcs are faster than trolls)
    }
}

前端:

void SpawnCreature(creatureType)
{
    switch(creatureType)
    {
         case Orc:

           Orc anOrc = new Orc();
           anORc.Walk();

          case Troll:

            Troll aTroll = new Troll();
             aTroll.Walk();
    }
}

你可以看到这是如何变得混乱的。你可以在这里使用一个接口，这样你的前端就会被编写一次(这里是重要的部分)测试，然后你可以根据需要插入更多的后端项目:

interface ICreature
{
    void Walk(int distance)
}

public class Troll : ICreature
public class Orc : ICreature 

//etc

前端则为:

void SpawnCreature(creatureType)
{
    ICreature creature;

    switch(creatureType)
    {
         case Orc:

           creature = new Orc();

          case Troll:

            creature = new Troll();
    }

    creature.Walk();
}

前端现在只关心接口ICreature -它不关心喷子或兽人的内部实现，而只关心他们实现ICreature的事实。

从这个角度来看，需要注意的一点是，您也可以很容易地使用抽象生物类，从这个角度来看，这具有相同的效果。

你可以将创建的内容提取到工厂:

public class CreatureFactory {

 public ICreature GetCreature(creatureType)
 {
    ICreature creature;

    switch(creatureType)
    {
         case Orc:

           creature = new Orc();

          case Troll:

            creature = new Troll();
    }

    return creature;
  }
}

我们的前端会变成:

CreatureFactory _factory;

void SpawnCreature(creatureType)
{
    ICreature creature = _factory.GetCreature(creatureType);

    creature.Walk();
}

现在，前端甚至不需要有实现Troll和Orc的库的引用(假设工厂在一个单独的库中)——它不需要知道任何关于它们的信息。

B:假设你拥有在你的同质数据结构中只有某些生物才有的功能，例如:

interface ICanTurnToStone
{
   void TurnToStone();
}

public class Troll: ICreature, ICanTurnToStone

前端可以是:

void SpawnCreatureInSunlight(creatureType)
{
    ICreature creature = _factory.GetCreature(creatureType);

    creature.Walk();

    if (creature is ICanTurnToStone)
    {
       (ICanTurnToStone)creature.TurnToStone();
    }
}

C:依赖注入用法

大多数依赖注入框架在前端代码和后端实现之间存在非常松散的耦合时才能工作。如果我们以上面的工厂为例，让我们的工厂实现一个接口:

public interface ICreatureFactory {
     ICreature GetCreature(string creatureType);
}

我们的前端可以通过构造函数注入(例如MVC API控制器)(通常):

public class CreatureController : Controller {

   private readonly ICreatureFactory _factory;

   public CreatureController(ICreatureFactory factory) {
     _factory = factory;
   }

   public HttpResponseMessage TurnToStone(string creatureType) {

       ICreature creature = _factory.GetCreature(creatureType);
   
       creature.TurnToStone();

       return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK);
   }
}

使用我们的DI框架(例如Ninject或Autofac)，我们可以设置它们，以便在运行时在构造函数中需要ICreatureFactory时创建一个CreatureFactory实例——这使我们的代码美观而简单。

这也意味着当我们为控制器编写单元测试时，我们可以提供一个模拟的ICreatureFactory(例如，如果具体实现需要访问DB，我们不希望我们的单元测试依赖于它)，并轻松地测试控制器中的代码。

D:还有其他用途，例如，你有两个项目A和B，由于“遗留”原因，它们没有很好地组织起来，而A有B的参考。

然后在B中发现需要调用a中已经存在的方法的功能。由于您获得的是循环引用，因此不能使用具体实现来实现。

你可以在B中声明一个接口，然后由A中的类实现。你在B中的方法可以被传递一个实现接口的类的实例，即使具体对象是a中的类型。

I share your sense that Interfaces are not necessary. Here is a quote from Cwalina pg 80 Framework Design Guidelines "I often here people saying that interfaces specify contracts. I believe this a dangerous myth. Interfaces by themselves do not specify much. ..." He and co-author Abrams managed 3 releases of .Net for Microsoft. He goes on to say that the 'contract' is "expressed" in an implementation of the class. IMHO watching this for decades, there were many people warning Microsoft that taking the engineering paradigm to the max in OLE/COM might seem good but its usefulness is more directly to hardware. Especially in a big way in the 80s and 90s getting interoperating standards codified. In our TCP/IP Internet world there is little appreciation of the hardware and software gymnastics we would jump through to get solutions 'wired up' between and among mainframes, minicomputers, and microprocessors of which PCs were just a small minority. So coding to interfaces and their protocols made computing work. And interfaces ruled. But what does solving making X.25 work with your application have in common with posting recipes for the holidays? I have been coding C++ and C# for many years and I never created one once.

考虑接口的最简单方法是认识继承的意义。如果类CC继承了类C，这意味着:

类CC可以使用类C的任何public或protected成员，就像它们是自己的一样，因此只需要实现父类中不存在的东西。 对CC的引用可以传递或分配给期望对C的引用的例程或变量。

遗传的这两个功能在某种意义上是相互独立的;虽然继承同时应用这两个，但也可以应用第二个而不应用第一个。这很有用，因为允许一个对象从两个或多个不相关的类继承成员要比允许一种类型可以替代多种类型复杂得多。

接口有点像抽象基类，但有一个关键的区别:继承基类的对象不能继承任何其他类。相反，一个对象可以实现一个接口，而不影响它继承任何所需类或实现任何其他接口的能力。

One nice feature of this (underutilized in the .net framework, IMHO) is that they make it possible to indicate declaratively the things an object can do. Some objects, for example, will want data-source object from which they can retrieve things by index (as is possible with a List), but they won't need to store anything there. Other routines will need a data-depository object where they can store things not by index (as with Collection.Add), but they won't need to read anything back. Some data types will allow access by index, but won't allow writing; others will allow writing, but won't allow access by index. Some, of course, will allow both.

If ReadableByIndex and Appendable were unrelated base classes, it would be impossible to define a type which could be passed both to things expecting a ReadableByIndex and things expecting an Appendable. One could try to mitigate this by having ReadableByIndex or Appendable derive from the other; the derived class would have to make available public members for both purposes, but warn that some public members might not actually work. Some of Microsoft's classes and interfaces do that, but that's rather icky. A cleaner approach is to have interfaces for the different purposes, and then have objects implement interfaces for the things they can actually do. If one had an interface IReadableByIndex and another interface IAppendable, classes which could do one or the other could implement the appropriate interfaces for the things they can do.