让我们打个比方。对于一个特定的音乐剧本，每个演奏它的音乐家都有自己的诠释。

音乐家可以用接口抽象，音乐家所属的流派可以是一个抽象类，它定义了一些全局解释规则，每个演奏的音乐家都可以用具体类建模。

如果你是音乐作品的听众，你可以参考剧本，例如巴赫的“富加与托卡塔”，每个演奏它的音乐家都以自己的方式多态地演奏。

这只是一个可能的设计示例(在Java中):

public interface Musician {
  public void play(Work work);
}

public interface Work {
  public String getScript();
}

public class FugaAndToccata implements Work {
  public String getScript() {
    return Bach.getFugaAndToccataScript();
  }
}

public class AnnHalloway implements Musician {
  public void play(Work work) {
    // plays in her own style, strict, disciplined
    String script = work.getScript()
  }
}

public class VictorBorga implements Musician {
  public void play(Work work) {
    // goofing while playing with superb style
    String script = work.getScript()
  }
}

public class Listener {
  public void main(String[] args) {
    Musician musician;
    if (args!=null && args.length > 0 && args[0].equals("C")) {
      musician = new AnnHalloway();
    } else {
      musician = new TerryGilliam();
    }
    musician.play(new FugaAndToccata());
}

一般来说，它是一种使用相同或表面上相似的API来为许多不同类型的对象提供接口的能力。有多种形式:

Function overloading: defining multiple functions with the same name and different parameter types, such as sqrt(float), sqrt(double) and sqrt(complex). In most languages that allow this, the compiler will automatically select the correct one for the type of argument being passed into it, thus this is compile-time polymorphism. Virtual methods in OOP: a method of a class can have various implementations tailored to the specifics of its subclasses; each of these is said to override the implementation given in the base class. Given an object that may be of the base class or any of its subclasses, the correct implementation is selected on the fly, thus this is run-time polymorphism. Templates: a feature of some OO languages whereby a function, class, etc. can be parameterised by a type. For example, you can define a generic "list" template class, and then instantiate it as "list of integers", "list of strings", maybe even "list of lists of strings" or the like. Generally, you write the code once for a data structure of arbitrary element type, and the compiler generates versions of it for the various element types.

简单类比解释

美国的总统采用多态。怎么做?他有很多顾问:

军事顾问 法律顾问 核物理学家(作为顾问) 等等。

每个人只应该对一件事负责:

总统不是镀锌层专家，也不是量子物理专家。他不知道很多事情。但他知道如何管理国家。

代码也是一样:关注点和职责应该被分离到相关的类/人。这使得维护代码更加容易，特别是当您正在进行更改时。变化是不可避免的。当事情发生变化时，您不希望破坏应用程序的其他部分。总统们应该专注于管理国家，而不是进入专业领域的细节:

为什么一个总统知道所有这些具体的事情是一个坏主意?

如果总统明确地告诉人们要做什么，那就意味着总统需要确切地知道要做什么。如果总统自己需要知道具体的事情，这意味着当你需要做出改变时，你需要在两个地方做出改变，而不仅仅是一个地方。

例如，如果EPA改变了污染法律，那么当这种情况发生时:你必须对EPA类和总统类进行更改。在两个地方而不是一个地方更改代码可能是危险的——因为它更难维护。

有没有更好的方法?

有一个更好的方法:总统不需要知道任何事情的细节——他可以从专门负责这些事情的人那里得到最好的建议。

他可以用多态的方法来治理国家。

使用多态方法的例子:

总统所做的就是让人们给他提建议——这就是他在现实生活中所做的——这就是一个好总统应该做的。他的顾问们都有不同的反应，但他们都知道总统是什么意思:Advise()。成百上千的人涌进他的办公室。他们是谁并不重要。总统所知道的是，当他要求他们“建议”时，他们知道如何相应回应:

public class MisterPresident
{
    public void RunTheCountry()
    {
        // assume the Petraeus and Condi classes etc are instantiated.
        petraeus.Advise(); // # Petraeus says send 100,000 troops to Fallujah
        condolezza.Advise(); // # she says negotiate trade deal with Iran
        healthOfficials.Advise(); // # they say we need to spend $50 billion on ObamaCare
    }
}

这种方法允许总统在不了解任何军事、医疗或国际外交的情况下管理国家:细节留给专家。总统需要知道的唯一一件事是:“Advise()”。

你不想要的:

public class MisterPresident
{
    public void RunTheCountry()
    {
        // people walk into the Presidents office and he tells them what to do
        // depending on who they are.

        // Fallujah Advice - Mr Prez tells his military exactly what to do.
        petraeus.IncreaseTroopNumbers();
        petraeus.ImproveSecurity();
        petraeus.PayContractors();

        // Condi diplomacy advice - Prez tells Condi how to negotiate

        condi.StallNegotiations();
        condi.LowBallFigure();
        condi.FireDemocraticallyElectedIraqiLeaderBecauseIDontLikeHim();

        // Health care

        healthOfficial.IncreasePremiums();
        healthOfficial.AddPreexistingConditions();
    }
}

NO! NO! NO! In the above scenario, the president is doing all the work: he knows about increasing troop numbers and pre-existing conditions. This means that if middle eastern policies change, then the president would have to change his commands, as well as the Petraeus class as well. We should only have to change the Petraeus class, because the President shouldn't have to get bogged down in that sort of detail. He doesn't need to know about the details. All he needs to know is that if he makes one order, everything will be taken care of. All the details should be left to the experts.

这使得总统可以做他最擅长的事情:制定总体政策，保持良好的形象，打高尔夫球。

它实际上是如何实现的——通过基类还是公共接口

简而言之，这实际上就是多态性。具体是怎么做到的呢?通过“实现一个公共接口”或者通过使用基类(继承)——参见上面的回答，它们更详细地说明了这一点。(为了更清楚地理解这个概念，您需要知道接口是什么，还需要了解继承是什么。否则，你可能会很挣扎。)

换句话说，Petraeus、Condi和healthoofficial都是“实现接口”的类——让我们称其为IAdvisor接口，它只包含一个方法:Advise()。但现在我们进入细节。

这是最理想的

    public class MisterPresident
    {
            // You can pass in any advisor: Condi, HealthOfficials,
            //  Petraeus etc. The president has no idea who it will 
            // be. But he does know that he can ask them to "advise" 
            // and that's all Mr Prez cares for.

        public void RunTheCountry(IAdvisor governmentOfficer)
        {             
            governmentOfficer.Advise();              
        }
    }


    public class USA
    {
        MisterPresident president;

        public USA(MisterPresident president)
        {
            this.president = president;
        }

        public void ImplementPolicy()
        {
            IAdvisor governmentOfficer = getAdvisor(); // Returns an advisor: could be condi, or petraus etc.
            president.RunTheCountry(governmentOfficer);
        }
    }

总结

你真正需要知道的是:

总统不需要知道细节——那些是留给别人的。 总统所需要知道的是问谁曾经走进家门给他建议-我们知道他们绝对知道当被要求建议时该做什么(因为他们实际上都是顾问(或IAdvisors))

我真的希望它能帮到你。如果你不明白任何张贴评论，我会再试一次。

让我们打个比方。对于一个特定的音乐剧本，每个演奏它的音乐家都有自己的诠释。

音乐家可以用接口抽象，音乐家所属的流派可以是一个抽象类，它定义了一些全局解释规则，每个演奏的音乐家都可以用具体类建模。

如果你是音乐作品的听众，你可以参考剧本，例如巴赫的“富加与托卡塔”，每个演奏它的音乐家都以自己的方式多态地演奏。

这只是一个可能的设计示例(在Java中):

public interface Musician {
  public void play(Work work);
}

public interface Work {
  public String getScript();
}

public class FugaAndToccata implements Work {
  public String getScript() {
    return Bach.getFugaAndToccataScript();
  }
}

public class AnnHalloway implements Musician {
  public void play(Work work) {
    // plays in her own style, strict, disciplined
    String script = work.getScript()
  }
}

public class VictorBorga implements Musician {
  public void play(Work work) {
    // goofing while playing with superb style
    String script = work.getScript()
  }
}

public class Listener {
  public void main(String[] args) {
    Musician musician;
    if (args!=null && args.length > 0 && args[0].equals("C")) {
      musician = new AnnHalloway();
    } else {
      musician = new TerryGilliam();
    }
    musician.play(new FugaAndToccata());
}

我正在浏览另一篇完全不同的文章。多态性出现了……现在我认为我知道多态性是什么....但显然不是用这种美丽的方式解释的。想把它写在某个地方。更好的是分享它…)

http://www.eioba.com/a/1htn/how-i-explained-rest-to-my-wife

从这部分开始阅读:

…多态性。这是一种很奇怪的说法，不同的名词可以有相同的动词。

从理解和应用PHP多态性，感谢Steve Guidetti。

Polymorphism is a long word for a very simple concept. Polymorphism describes a pattern in object oriented programming in which classes have different functionality while sharing a common interface. The beauty of polymorphism is that the code working with the different classes does not need to know which class it is using since they’re all used the same way. A real world analogy for polymorphism is a button. Everyone knows how to use a button: you simply apply pressure to it. What a button “does,” however, depends on what it is connected to and the context in which it is used — but the result does not affect how it is used. If your boss tells you to press a button, you already have all the information needed to perform the task. In the programming world, polymorphism is used to make applications more modular and extensible. Instead of messy conditional statements describing different courses of action, you create interchangeable objects that you select based on your needs. That is the basic goal of polymorphism.