I like Jimmy's answer a lot, but I feel I need to add something to it. The key to the whole thing is the "able" in IProcessable . It indicates a capability (or property, but meaning "intrinsic quality", not in the sense of C# properties) of the object that implements the interface. IAnimal is probably not a good example for an interface, but IWalkable might be a good interface to have if your system has many things that can walk. You might have classes derived from Animal such as Dog, Cow, Fish, Snake. The first two would probably implement IWalkable, the latter two don't walk, so they wouldn't. Now you ask "why not just have another superclass, WalkingAnimal, that Dog and Cow derive from?". The answer is when you have something completely outside the inheritance tree that also can walk, such as a robot. Robot would implement IWalkable, but probably wouldn't derive from Animal. If you want a list of things that can walk, you type it as IWalkable and you can put all walking animals plus robots in the list.

现在，将IWalkable替换为IPersistable这样更像软件的东西，这样的类比就更接近你在实际程序中看到的情况了。

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。

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…

假设你想要模拟当你试图睡觉时可能发生的烦恼。

接口前的模型

class Mosquito {
    void flyAroundYourHead(){}
}

class Neighbour{
    void startScreaming(){}
}

class LampJustOutsideYourWindow(){
    void shineJustThroughYourWindow() {}
}

正如你清楚地看到的，当你试图睡觉时，许多“事情”都可能令人讨厌。

使用没有接口的类

但是在使用这些类时，我们遇到了一个问题。他们毫无共同之处。您必须分别调用每个方法。

class TestAnnoyingThings{
    void testAnnoyingThinks(Mosquito mosquito, Neighbour neighbour, LampJustOutsideYourWindow lamp){
         if(mosquito != null){
             mosquito.flyAroundYourHead();
         }
         if(neighbour!= null){
             neighbour.startScreaming();
         }
         if(lamp!= null){
             lamp.shineJustThroughYourWindow();
         }
    }
}

带有接口的模型

为了克服这个问题，我们可以引入一个iterface

interface Annoying{
   public void annoy();

}

并在类中实现它

class Mosquito implements Annoying {
    void flyAroundYourHead(){}

    void annoy(){
        flyAroundYourHead();
    }
}

class Neighbour implements Annoying{
    void startScreaming(){}

    void annoy(){
        startScreaming();
    }
}

class LampJustOutsideYourWindow implements Annoying{
    void shineJustThroughYourWindow() {}

    void annoy(){
        shineJustThroughYourWindow();
    }
}

接口使用

这将使这些类的使用更容易

class TestAnnoyingThings{
    void testAnnoyingThinks(Annoying annoying){
        annoying.annoy();
    }
}

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.

扩展一下Larsenal所说的。接口是所有实现类都必须遵循的契约。因此，您可以使用一种称为契约编程的技术。这允许您的软件变得独立于实现。