我真的不明白接口存在的原因。据我所知，这是c#中不存在的多继承的一种工作(至少我是这么被告知的)。
我所看到的是，您预定义了一些成员和函数，然后必须在类中再次重新定义它们。从而使接口成为冗余。它只是感觉像句法……嗯，垃圾对我来说(请没有冒犯的意思。Junk是指无用的东西)。
在下面的例子中，我将创建一个名为Pizza的基类，而不是一个接口。
简单示例(取自不同的堆栈溢出贡献)
public interface IPizza
{
public void Order();
}
public class PepperoniPizza : IPizza
{
public void Order()
{
//Order Pepperoni pizza
}
}
public class HawaiiPizza : IPizza
{
public void Order()
{
//Order HawaiiPizza
}
}
当前回答
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。
其他回答
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.
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.
考虑到你不能在c#中使用多重继承，然后再看看你的问题。
这些都是很好的例子。
另外，在switch语句的情况下，您不再需要在每次希望里约热内卢以特定方式执行任务时进行维护和切换。
在你的披萨例子中，如果你想做一个披萨，界面就是你所需要的，从那里每个披萨都有自己的逻辑。
这有助于减少耦合和圈复杂度。您仍然需要实现逻辑，但在更广泛的情况下，您需要跟踪的内容将更少。
对于每个披萨，您可以跟踪特定于该披萨的信息。其他披萨有什么并不重要，因为只有其他披萨需要知道。
这么多答案! 尽我所能。呵呵。
首先，你可以使用一个具体的基类和派生类。在这种情况下，你将不得不在基类中为Prepare方法做一个空的或无用的实现，同时使这个方法为虚的，然后派生类将为自己重写这个Prepare方法。在这种情况下，在基类中实现Prepare是无用的。
选择使用接口的原因是必须定义契约，而不是实现。
有一个IPizza类型，它提供了一个功能来准备。这是合同。它是如何准备的是实现，这不是你的把关。这是各种Pizza实现的责任。 这里首选接口或抽象类而不是具体基类，因为您必须创建一个抽象，即Prepare方法。不能在具体基类中创建抽象方法。
现在你可能会说，为什么不用抽象类呢?
所以，当你需要实现100%的抽象时，你需要使用接口。但是当你需要一些抽象和具体的实现时，选择抽象类。它的意思。
例子:假设你所有的披萨都有底料，底料的准备过程是相同的。然而，所有披萨的种类和配料都有所不同。在这种情况下，您可以使用一个抽象方法Prepare和一个具体方法PreparePizzaBase创建一个抽象类。
public abstract class Pizza{
// concrete method which is common to all pizzas.
public PizzaBase PreparePizzaBase(){
// code for pizza base preparation.
}
public abstract void Prepare();
}
public class DeluxePizza: Pizza{
public void Prepare(){
var base=PreparePizzaBase();
// prepare deluxe pizza on pizza base.
}
}
