Interfaces

An interface is a contract: The person writing the interface says, "hey, I accept things looking that way", and the person using the interface says "OK, the class I write looks that way".

An interface is an empty shell. There are only the signatures of the methods, which implies that the methods do not have a body. The interface can't do anything. It's just a pattern.

For example (pseudo code):

// I say all motor vehicles should look like this:
interface MotorVehicle
{
    void run();

    int getFuel();
}

// My team mate complies and writes vehicle looking that way
class Car implements MotorVehicle
{

    int fuel;

    void run()
    {
        print("Wrroooooooom");
    }


    int getFuel()
    {
        return this.fuel;
    }
}

Implementing an interface consumes very little CPU, because it's not a class, just a bunch of names, and therefore there isn't any expensive look-up to do. It's great when it matters, such as in embedded devices.

Abstract classes

Abstract classes, unlike interfaces, are classes. They are more expensive to use, because there is a look-up to do when you inherit from them.

Abstract classes look a lot like interfaces, but they have something more: You can define a behavior for them. It's more about a person saying, "these classes should look like that, and they have that in common, so fill in the blanks!".

For example:

// I say all motor vehicles should look like this:
abstract class MotorVehicle
{

    int fuel;

    // They ALL have fuel, so lets implement this for everybody.
    int getFuel()
    {
         return this.fuel;
    }

    // That can be very different, force them to provide their
    // own implementation.
    abstract void run();
}

// My teammate complies and writes vehicle looking that way
class Car extends MotorVehicle
{
    void run()
    {
        print("Wrroooooooom");
    }
}

Implementation

While abstract classes and interfaces are supposed to be different concepts, the implementations make that statement sometimes untrue. Sometimes, they are not even what you think they are.

In Java, this rule is strongly enforced, while in PHP, interfaces are abstract classes with no method declared.

In Python, abstract classes are more a programming trick you can get from the ABC module and is actually using metaclasses, and therefore classes. And interfaces are more related to duck typing in this language and it's a mix between conventions and special methods that call descriptors (the __method__ methods).

As usual with programming, there is theory, practice, and practice in another language

I like to think of interfaces as contracts (this object will have property X & Y and method Z) but makes no assumptions about implementation (at least they did before Default Interface Implementations as of C# 8: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/default-implementations-in-interfaces, although I use these sparingly if ever).

Abstract classes (and derived non-sealed classes) can be thought of as just a place to share implementation that's common between supersets of classes and their subsets. Abstract classes provide an object-oriented way of supporting the Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle (https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/software-design-principles-dry-kiss-yagni) where the implementation you would otherwise repeat doesn't make sense outside of the context of your class hierarchy.

Interfaces & abstract classes are by no means mutually exclusive and can be used in conjunction with each other depending on the context.

How about an analogy: when I was in the Air Force, I went to pilot training and became a USAF (US Air Force) pilot. At that point I wasn't qualified to fly anything, and had to attend aircraft type training. Once I qualified, I was a pilot (Abstract class) and a C-141 pilot (concrete class). At one of my assignments, I was given an additional duty: Safety Officer. Now I was still a pilot and a C-141 pilot, but I also performed Safety Officer duties (I implemented ISafetyOfficer, so to speak). A pilot wasn't required to be a safety officer, other people could have done it as well.

All USAF pilots have to follow certain Air Force-wide regulations, and all C-141 (or F-16, or T-38) pilots 'are' USAF pilots. Anyone can be a safety officer. So, to summarize:

• Pilot: abstract class
• C-141 Pilot: concrete class
• ISafety Officer: interface

added note: this was meant to be an analogy to help explain the concept, not a coding recommendation. See the various comments below, the discussion is interesting.

In terms of code, they're very similar, which often raises confusion like yours.

Conceptually, I think of it this way. When you inherit from an abstract class, you're saying that you are a type of the class. You have the same attributes.

When you implement an interface, you're saying that you do the things that that interface does.

In one sentence, abstract classes allow you to inherit state/variables/data, interfaces allow you inherit behaviors.

In layman's terms:

Interfaces are for "can do/can be treated as" type of relationships.

Abstract ( as well as concrete ) classes are for "is a" kind of relationship.

Look at these examples:

class Bird extends Animal implements Flight;
class Plane extends Vehicle implements Flight, AccountableAsset;
class Mosquito extends Animal implements Flight;
class Horse extends Animal;
class RaceHorse extends Horse implements AccountableAsset;
class Pegasus extends Horse implements Flight;

Bird, Mosquito and Horse are Animals. They are related. They inherit common methods from Animal like eat(), metabolize() and reproduce(). Maybe they override these methods, adding a little extra to them, but they take advantage of the default behavior implemented in Animal like metabolizeGlucose().

Plane is not related to Bird, Mosquito or Horse.

Flight is implemented by dissimilar, unrelated classes, like Bird and Plane.

AccountableAsset is also implemented by dissimilar, unrelated classes, like Plane and RaceHorse.

Horse doesn't implement Flight.

As you can see classes (abstract or concrete) helps you build hierarchies, letting you inhering code from the upper levels to the lower levels of the hierarchy. In theory the lower you are in the hierarchy, the more specialized your behavior is, but you don't have to worry about a lot of things that are already taken care of.

Interfaces, in the other hand, create no hierarchy, but they can help homogenize certain behaviors across hierarchies so you can abstract them from the hierarchy in certain contexts.

For example you can have a program sum the value of a group of AccountableAssets regardless of their being RaceHorses or Planes.

I will give you an example first:

public interface LoginAuth{
   public String encryptPassword(String pass);
   public void checkDBforUser();
}

Suppose you have 3 databases in your application. Then each and every implementation for that database needs to define the above 2 methods:

public class DBMySQL implements LoginAuth{
          // Needs to implement both methods
}
public class DBOracle implements LoginAuth{
          // Needs to implement both methods
}
public class DBAbc implements LoginAuth{
          // Needs to implement both methods
}

But what if encryptPassword() is not database dependent, and it's the same for each class? Then the above would not be a good approach.

Instead, consider this approach:

public abstract class LoginAuth{
   public String encryptPassword(String pass){
            // Implement the same default behavior here 
            // that is shared by all subclasses.
   }

   // Each subclass needs to provide their own implementation of this only:
   public abstract void checkDBforUser();
}

Now in each child class, we only need to implement one method - the method that is database dependent.