它解决了一个具体的问题:

你有a b c d四种不同类型。在你的代码中，你可以这样写:

a.Process();
b.Process();
c.Process();
d.Process();

为什么不让他们实现IProcessable呢

List<IProcessable> list;

foreach(IProcessable p in list)
    p.Process();

当你添加50种类型的类，它们都做同样的事情时，这种伸缩性会更好。

另一个具体问题是:

你有没有看过System.Linq.Enumerable?它定义了大量的扩展方法，可以对实现IEnumerable的任何类型进行操作。因为任何实现IEnumerable的东西基本上都在说“我支持无序foreach类型模式中的迭代”，所以你可以为任何可枚举类型定义复杂的行为(Count、Max、Where、Select等)。

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.

它解决了一个具体的问题:

你有a b c d四种不同类型。在你的代码中，你可以这样写:

a.Process();
b.Process();
c.Process();
d.Process();

为什么不让他们实现IProcessable呢

List<IProcessable> list;

foreach(IProcessable p in list)
    p.Process();

当你添加50种类型的类，它们都做同样的事情时，这种伸缩性会更好。

另一个具体问题是:

你有没有看过System.Linq.Enumerable?它定义了大量的扩展方法，可以对实现IEnumerable的任何类型进行操作。因为任何实现IEnumerable的东西基本上都在说“我支持无序foreach类型模式中的迭代”，所以你可以为任何可枚举类型定义复杂的行为(Count、Max、Where、Select等)。

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。

使用接口有很多目的。

Use in polymorphic behavior. Where you want to call specific methods of a child class with an inteface having a reference to the child class. Having a contract with classes to implement all of the methods where it is necessary, like most common use is with COM objects , where a wrapper class is generated on a DLL which inherits the interface; these methods are called behind the scenes, and you just need to implement them but with the same structure as defined in the COM DLL which you can only know through the interface that they expose. To reduce memory usage by loading specific methods in a class. Like if you have three business objects and they are implemented in a single class, you can use three interfaces.

例如IUser, IOrder, IOrderItem

public interface IUser()
{

void AddUser(string name ,string fname);

}

// Same for IOrder and IOrderItem
//


public class  BusinessLayer: IUser, IOrder, IOrderItem

{    
    public void AddUser(string name ,string fname)
    {
        // Do stuffs here.
    }

    // All methods from all interfaces must be implemented.

}

如果你只想添加一个用户，可以这样做:

IUser user = new (IUser)BusinessLayer();

// It will load  all methods into memory which are declared in the IUser interface.

user.AddUser();

我偶尔也会使用接口，下面是我最新的用法(名称已经概括了):

我在WinForm上有一堆需要将数据保存到业务对象的自定义控件。一种方法是分别调用每个控件:

myBusinessObject.Save(controlA.Data);
myBusinessObject.Save(controlB.Data);
myBusinessObject.Save(controlC.Data);

这个实现的问题是，每当我添加一个控件，我必须进入我的“保存数据”方法，并添加新的控件。

我改变了我的控件来实现一个ISaveable接口，它有一个方法SaveToBusinessObject(…)，所以现在我的“保存数据”方法只是通过控件迭代，如果它发现一个是ISaveable，它调用SaveToBusinessObject。所以现在当需要一个新的控件时，所有人要做的就是在该对象中实现ISaveable(并且永远不要触及其他类)。

foreach(Control c in Controls)
{
  ISaveable s = c as ISaveable;

  if( s != null )
      s.SaveToBusinessObject(myBusinessObject);
}

接口通常未被意识到的好处是本地化修改。定义之后，您很少会更改应用程序的整体流程，但通常会在细节级别上进行更改。当您将细节保存在特定对象中时，ProcessA中的更改将不会影响ProcessB中的更改。(基类也有这个好处。)

编辑:另一个好处是行动的专一性。就像在我的例子中，我所要做的就是保存数据;我不关心它是什么类型的控件，或者它是否可以做任何其他事情——我只想知道我是否可以保存控件中的数据。它使我的保存代码非常清晰——没有检查它是否为文本、数字、布尔值或任何东西，因为自定义控件处理所有这些。