别太担心。很多开发人员很少需要编写接口。您将经常使用. net框架中可用的接口，但如果您觉得没有必要在短时间内编写一个接口，这也没什么好奇怪的。

我经常给别人的例子是，如果你有一个帆船职业和一个毒蛇职业。它们分别继承了Boat类和Car类。现在假设您需要遍历所有这些对象并调用它们的Drive()方法。你也可以编写如下代码:

if(myObject is Boat)
    ((Boat)myObject).Drive()
else
    if (myObject is Car)
        ((Car)myObject).Drive()

这样写会简单得多:

((IDrivable)myObject).Drive()

假设你正在制作一款第一人称射击游戏。玩家有多种枪可供选择。

我们可以有一个接口Gun，它定义了函数shoot()。

我们需要不同的子类枪类，即霰弹枪狙击手等。

ShotGun implements Gun{
    public void shoot(){
       \\shotgun implementation of shoot.
    } 
}

Sniper implements Gun{
    public void shoot(){
       \\sniper implementation of shoot.
    } 
}

射击类

射手把所有的枪都装在他的盔甲里。让我们创建一个List来表示它。

List<Gun> listOfGuns = new ArrayList<Gun>();

射手在需要时使用switchGun()函数循环使用他的枪。

public void switchGun(){
    //code to cycle through the guns from the list of guns.
    currentGun = //the next gun in the list.
}

我们可以使用上面的函数设置当前的Gun，当调用fire()时，简单地调用shoot()函数。

public void fire(){
    currentGun.shoot();
}

shoot函数的行为将根据Gun接口的不同实现而有所不同。

结论

当一个类函数依赖于来自另一个类的函数时，创建一个接口，而另一个类根据实现的类的实例(对象)改变其行为。

例如，Shooter类的fire()函数期望枪械(Sniper, ShotGun)实现shoot()函数。 所以如果我们换枪开火。

shooter.switchGun();
shooter.fire();

我们已经改变了fire()函数的行为。

当您希望定义对象可以显示的行为时，通常会使用接口。

在. net世界中，一个很好的例子是IDisposable接口，它用于任何使用必须手动释放的系统资源的Microsoft类。它要求实现它的类具有Dispose()方法。

Dispose()方法也被VB的using语言构造调用。NET和c#，只适用于IDisposables)

请记住，您可以通过使用诸如TypeOf…之类的构造来检查对象是否实现了特定的接口。Is (VB.NET)， Is (c#)， instanceof (Java)，等等…

把接口想象成一个契约。这是一种说法，“这些类应该遵循这些规则。”

所以在IAnimal的例子中，它是一种说，“我必须能够在实现IAnimal的类上调用Run, Walk等。”

为什么这个有用?您可能希望构建一个函数，该函数依赖于必须能够在对象上调用Run和Walk这一事实。你可以有以下内容:

public void RunThenWalk(Monkey m) {
    m.Run();
    m.Walk();
}

public void RunThenWalk(Dog d) {
    d.Run();
    d.Walk();
}

．.． 对所有你知道能跑能走的物体重复这一步骤。然而，在你的IAnimal接口中，你可以像下面这样定义函数:

public void RunThenWalk(IAnimal a) {
    a.Run();
    a.Walk();
}

通过根据接口编程，您实际上是信任类来实现接口的目的。所以在我们的例子中，想法是“我不在乎他们怎么跑和走，只要他们能跑和走。”只要他们履行协议，我的RunThenWalk就有效。它在不了解任何其他课程的情况下运行得很好。”

在这个相关的问题上也有很好的讨论。

一些非编程示例可能帮助您了解接口在编程中的适当使用。

There's an interface between electrical devices and the electricity network - it's the set of conventions about the shape of the plugs and sockets and the voltages/currents across them. If you want to implement a new electrical device, as long as your plug follows the rules it will be able to get services from the network. This makes extensibility very easy and removes or lowers the costs of coordination: you don't have to notify the electricity provider about how your new device works and come to a separate agreement about how to plug your new device into the network.

各国都有标准的铁路轨距。这使得铺设铁轨的工程公司和建造在这些铁轨上运行的列车的工程公司之间实现了分工，并使铁路公司有可能在不重新设计整个系统的情况下更换和升级列车。

The service a business presents to a client can be described as an interface: a well defined interface emphasises the service and hides the means. When you put a letter in a mailbox, you expect the postal system to deliver the letter within a given time but you have no expectations about how the letter is delivered: you don't need to know, and the postal service has the flexibility to choose the means of delivery that best meets the requirements and current circumstances. An exception to this is the ability of customers to choose airmail - that's not the kind of interface a modern computer programmer would have designed, since it reveals too much of the implementation.

来自自然的例子:我不太喜欢eats()， makesSound()， moves()等例子。它们确实描述了行为，这是正确的，但它们没有描述交互以及它们是如何被启用的。在自然界中，使相互作用成为可能的界面的一个明显的例子是与繁殖有关的，例如一朵花为蜜蜂提供了一个特定的界面，以便授粉能够发生。

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.