Develop Reference

Is a base class sufficient, or is it ALWAYS worth creating an interface also? [duplicate]

When should I use an interface and when should I use a base class?
Should it always be an interface if I don't want to actually define a base implementation of the methods?
If I have a Dog and Cat class. Why would I want to implement IPet instead of PetBase? I can understand having interfaces for ISheds or IBarks (IMakesNoise?), because those can be placed on a pet by pet basis, but I don't understand which to use for a generic Pet.

Let's take your example of a Dog and a Cat class, and let's illustrate using C#:
Both a dog and a cat are animals, specifically, quadruped mammals (animals are waaay too general). Let us assume that you have an abstract class Mammal, for both of them:
public abstract class Mammal
This base class will probably have default methods such as:
Feed
Mate
All of which are behavior that have more or less the same implementation between either species. To define this you will have:
public class Dog : Mammal
public class Cat : Mammal
Now let's suppose there are other mammals, which we will usually see in a zoo:
public class Giraffe : Mammal
public class Rhinoceros : Mammal
public class Hippopotamus : Mammal
This will still be valid because at the core of the functionality Feed() and Mate() will still be the same.
However, giraffes, rhinoceros, and hippos are not exactly animals that you can make pets out of. That's where an interface will be useful:
public interface IPettable
{
IList<Trick> Tricks{get; set;}
void Bathe();
void Train(Trick t);
}
The implementation for the above contract will not be the same between a cat and dog; putting their implementations in an abstract class to inherit will be a bad idea.
Your Dog and Cat definitions should now look like:
public class Dog : Mammal, IPettable
public class Cat : Mammal, IPettable
Theoretically you can override them from a higher base class, but essentially an interface allows you to add on only the things you need into a class without the need for inheritance.
Consequently, because you can usually only inherit from one abstract class (in most statically typed OO languages that is... exceptions include C++) but be able to implement multiple interfaces, it allows you to construct objects in a strictly as required basis.

Well, Josh Bloch said himself in Effective Java 2d:
Prefer interfaces over abstract classes
Some main points:
Existing classes can be easily retrofitted to implement a new
interface. All you have to do is add
the required methods if they don’t yet
exist and add an implements clause to
the class declaration.
Interfaces are ideal for defining mixins. Loosely speaking, a
mixin is a type that a class can
implement in addition to its “primary
type” to declare that it provides
some optional behavior. For example,
Comparable is a mixin interface that
allows a class to declare that its
instances are ordered with respect to
other mutually comparable objects.
Interfaces allow the construction of nonhierarchical type
frameworks. Type hierarchies are
great for organizing some things, but
other things don’t fall neatly into a
rigid hierarchy.
Interfaces enable safe, powerful functionality enhancements via the
wrap- per class idiom. If you use
abstract classes to define types, you
leave the programmer who wants to add
functionality with no alternative but
to use inheritance.
Moreover, you can combine the virtues
of interfaces and abstract classes by
providing an abstract skeletal
implementation class to go with each
nontrivial interface that you export.
On the other hand, interfaces are very hard to evolve. If you add a method to an interface it'll break all of it's implementations.
PS.: Buy the book. It's a lot more detailed.

Interfaces and base classes represent two different forms of relationships.
Inheritance (base classes) represent an "is-a" relationship. E.g. a dog or a cat "is-a" pet. This relationship always represents the (single) purpose of the class (in conjunction with the "single responsibility principle").
Interfaces, on the other hand, represent additional features of a class. I'd call it an "is" relationship, like in "Foo is disposable", hence the IDisposable interface in C#.

Modern style is to define IPet and PetBase.
The advantage of the interface is that other code can use it without any ties whatsoever to other executable code. Completely "clean." Also interfaces can be mixed.
But base classes are useful for simple implementations and common utilities. So provide an abstract base class as well to save time and code.

Interfaces
Most languages allow you to implement multiple interfaces
Modifying an interface is a breaking change. All implementations need to be recompiled/modified.
All members are public. Implementations have to implement all members.
Interfaces help in Decoupling. You can use mock frameworks to mock out anything behind an interface
Interfaces normally indicate a kind of behavior
Interface implementations are decoupled / isolated from each other
Base classes
Allows you to add some default implementation that you get for free by derivation (From C# 8.0 by interface you can have default implementation)
Except C++, you can only derive from one class. Even if could from multiple classes, it is usually a bad idea.
Changing the base class is relatively easy. Derivations do not need to do anything special
Base classes can declare protected and public functions that can be accessed by derivations
Abstract Base classes can't be mocked easily like interfaces
Base classes normally indicate type hierarchy (IS A)
Class derivations may come to depend on some base behavior (have intricate knowledge of parent implementation). Things can be messy if you make a change to the base implementation for one guy and break the others.

In general, you should favor interfaces over abstract classes. One reason to use an abstract class is if you have common implementation among concrete classes. Of course, you should still declare an interface (IPet) and have an abstract class (PetBase) implement that interface.Using small, distinct interfaces, you can use multiples to further improve flexibility. Interfaces allow the maximum amount of flexibility and portability of types across boundaries. When passing references across boundaries, always pass the interface and not the concrete type. This allows the receiving end to determine concrete implementation and provides maximum flexibility. This is absolutely true when programming in a TDD/BDD fashion.
The Gang of Four stated in their book "Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation". I believe this to be true.

This is pretty .NET specific, but the Framework Design Guidelines book argues that in general classes give more flexibility in an evolving framework. Once an interface is shipped, you don't get the chance to change it without breaking code that used that interface. With a class however, you can modify it and not break code that links to it. As long you make the right modifications, which includes adding new functionality, you will be able to extend and evolve your code.
Krzysztof Cwalina says on page 81:
Over the course of the three versions of the .NET Framework, I have talked about this guideline with quite a few developers on our team. Many of them, including those who initially disagreed with the guidelines, have said that they regret having shipped some API as an interface. I have not heard of even one case in which somebody regretted that they shipped a class.
That being said there certainly is a place for interfaces. As a general guideline always provide an abstract base class implementation of an interface if for nothing else as an example of a way to implement the interface. In the best case that base class will save a lot of work.

Juan,
I like to think of interfaces as a way to characterize a class. A particular dog breed class, say a YorkshireTerrier, may be a descended of the parent dog class, but it is also implements IFurry, IStubby, and IYippieDog. So the class defines what the class is but the interface tells us things about it.
The advantage of this is it allows me to, for example, gather all the IYippieDog's and throw them into my Ocean collection. So now I can reach across a particular set of objects and find ones that meet the criteria I am looking at without inspecting the class too closely.
I find that interfaces really should define a sub-set of the public behavior of a class. If it defines all the public behavior for all the classes that implement then it usually does not need to exist. They do not tell me anything useful.
This thought though goes counter to the idea that every class should have an interface and you should code to the interface. That's fine, but you end up with a lot of one to one interfaces to classes and it makes things confusing. I understand that the idea is it does not really cost anything to do and now you can swap things in and out with ease. However, I find that I rarely do that. Most of the time I am just modifying the existing class in place and have the exact same issues I always did if the public interface of that class needs changing, except I now have to change it in two places.
So if you think like me you would definitely say that Cat and Dog are IPettable. It is a characterization that matches them both.
The other piece of this though is should they have the same base class? The question is do they need to be broadly treated as the same thing. Certainly they are both Animals, but does that fit how we are going to use them together.
Say I want to gather all Animal classes and put them in my Ark container.
Or do they need to be Mammals? Perhaps we need some kind of cross animal milking factory?
Do they even need to be linked together at all? Is it enough to just know they are both IPettable?
I often feel the desire to derive a whole class hierarchy when I really just need one class. I do it in anticipation someday I might need it and usually I never do. Even when I do, I usually find I have to do a lot to fix it. That’s because the first class I am creating is not the Dog, I am not that lucky, it is instead the Platypus. Now my entire class hierarchy is based on the bizarre case and I have a lot of wasted code.
You might also find at some point that not all Cats are IPettable (like that hairless one). Now you can move that Interface to all the derivative classes that fit. You will find that a much less breaking change that all of a sudden Cats are no longer derived from PettableBase.

Here is the basic and simple definiton of interface and base class:
Base class = object inheritance.
Interface = functional inheritance.
cheers

It is explained well in this Java World article.
Personally, I tend to use interfaces to define interfaces - i.e. parts of the system design that specify how something should be accessed.
It's not uncommon that I will have a class implementing one or more interfaces.
Abstract classes I use as a basis for something else.
The following is an extract from the above mentioned article JavaWorld.com article, author Tony Sintes, 04/20/01
Interface vs. abstract class
Choosing interfaces and abstract classes is not an either/or proposition. If you need to change your design, make it an interface. However, you may have abstract classes that provide some default behavior. Abstract classes are excellent candidates inside of application frameworks.
Abstract classes let you define some behaviors; they force your subclasses to provide others. For example, if you have an application framework, an abstract class may provide default services such as event and message handling. Those services allow your application to plug in to your application framework. However, there is some application-specific functionality that only your application can perform. Such functionality might include startup and shutdown tasks, which are often application-dependent. So instead of trying to define that behavior itself, the abstract base class can declare abstract shutdown and startup methods. The base class knows that it needs those methods, but an abstract class lets your class admit that it doesn't know how to perform those actions; it only knows that it must initiate the actions. When it is time to start up, the abstract class can call the startup method. When the base class calls this method, Java calls the method defined by the child class.
Many developers forget that a class that defines an abstract method can call that method as well. Abstract classes are an excellent way to create planned inheritance hierarchies. They're also a good choice for nonleaf classes in class hierarchies.
Class vs. interface
Some say you should define all classes in terms of interfaces, but I think recommendation seems a bit extreme. I use interfaces when I see that something in my design will change frequently.
For example, the Strategy pattern lets you swap new algorithms and processes into your program without altering the objects that use them. A media player might know how to play CDs, MP3s, and wav files. Of course, you don't want to hardcode those playback algorithms into the player; that will make it difficult to add a new format like AVI. Furthermore, your code will be littered with useless case statements. And to add insult to injury, you will need to update those case statements each time you add a new algorithm. All in all, this is not a very object-oriented way to program.
With the Strategy pattern, you can simply encapsulate the algorithm behind an object. If you do that, you can provide new media plug-ins at any time. Let's call the plug-in class MediaStrategy. That object would have one method: playStream(Stream s). So to add a new algorithm, we simply extend our algorithm class. Now, when the program encounters the new media type, it simply delegates the playing of the stream to our media strategy. Of course, you'll need some plumbing to properly instantiate the algorithm strategies you will need.
This is an excellent place to use an interface. We've used the Strategy pattern, which clearly indicates a place in the design that will change. Thus, you should define the strategy as an interface. You should generally favor interfaces over inheritance when you want an object to have a certain type; in this case, MediaStrategy. Relying on inheritance for type identity is dangerous; it locks you into a particular inheritance hierarchy. Java doesn't allow multiple inheritance, so you can't extend something that gives you a useful implementation or more type identity.

I recommend using composition instead of inheritence whenever possible. Use interfaces but use member objects for base implementation. That way, you can define a factory that constructs your objects to behave in a certain way. If you want to change the behavior then you make a new factory method (or abstract factory) that creates different types of sub-objects.
In some cases, you may find that your primary objects don't need interfaces at all, if all of the mutable behavior is defined in helper objects.
So instead of IPet or PetBase, you might end up with a Pet which has an IFurBehavior parameter. The IFurBehavior parameter is set by the CreateDog() method of the PetFactory. It is this parameter which is called for the shed() method.
If you do this you'll find your code is much more flexible and most of your simple objects deal with very basic system-wide behaviors.
I recommend this pattern even in multiple-inheritence languages.

Also keep in mind not to get swept away in OO (see blog) and always model objects based on behavior required, if you were designing an app where the only behavior you required was a generic name and species for an animal then you would only need one class Animal with a property for the name, instead of millions of classes for every possible animal in the world.

I have a rough rule-of-thumb
Functionality: likely to be different in all parts: Interface.
Data, and functionality, parts will be mostly the same, parts different: abstract class.
Data, and functionality, actually working, if extended only with slight changes: ordinary (concrete) class
Data and functionality, no changes planned: ordinary (concrete) class with final modifier.
Data, and maybe functionality: read-only: enum members.
This is very rough and ready and not at all strictly defined, but there is a spectrum from interfaces where everything is intended to be changed to enums where everything is fixed a bit like a read-only file.

Source: http://jasonroell.com/2014/12/09/interfaces-vs-abstract-classes-what-should-you-use/
C# is a wonderful language that has matured and evolved over the last 14 years. This is great for us developers because a mature language provides us with a plethora of language features that are at our disposal.
However, with much power becomes much responsibility. Some of these features can be misused, or sometimes it is hard to understand why you would choose to use one feature over another. Over the years, a feature that I have seen many developers struggle with is when to choose to use an interface or to choose to use an abstract class. Both have there advantages and disadvantages and the correct time and place to use each. But how to we decide???
Both provide for reuse of common functionality between types. The most obvious difference right away is that interfaces provide no implementation for their functionality whereas abstract classes allow you to implement some “base” or “default” behavior and then have the ability to “override” this default behavior with the classes derived types if necessary.
This is all well and good and provides for great reuse of code and adheres to the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) principle of software development. Abstract classes are great to use when you have an “is a” relationship.
For example: A golden retriever “is a” type of dog. So is a poodle. They both can bark, as all dogs can. However, you might want to state that the poodle park is significantly different than the “default” dog bark. Therefor, it could make sense for you to implement something as follows:
public abstract class Dog
{
public virtual void Bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base Class implementation of Bark");
}
}
public class GoldenRetriever : Dog
{
// the Bark method is inherited from the Dog class
}
public class Poodle : Dog
{
// here we are overriding the base functionality of Bark with our new implementation
// specific to the Poodle class
public override void Bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Poodle's implementation of Bark");
}
}
// Add a list of dogs to a collection and call the bark method.
void Main()
{
var poodle = new Poodle();
var goldenRetriever = new GoldenRetriever();
var dogs = new List<Dog>();
dogs.Add(poodle);
dogs.Add(goldenRetriever);
foreach (var dog in dogs)
{
dog.Bark();
}
}
// Output will be:
// Poodle's implementation of Bark
// Base Class implementation of Bark
//
As you can see, this would be a great way to keep your code DRY and allow for the base class implementation be called when any of the types can just rely on the default Bark instead of a special case implementation. The classes like GoldenRetriever, Boxer, Lab could all could inherit the “default” (bass class) Bark at no charge just because they implement the Dog abstract class.
But I’m sure you already knew that.
You are here because you want to understand why you might want to choose an interface over an abstract class or vice versa. Well one reason you may want to choose an interface over an abstract class is when you don’t have or want to prevent a default implementation. This is usually because the types that are implementing the interface not related in an “is a” relationship. Actually, they don’t have to be related at all except for the fact that each type “is able” or has “the ablity” to do something or have something.
Now what the heck does that mean? Well, for example: A human is not a duck…and a duck is not a human. Pretty obvious. However, both a duck and a human have “the ability” to swim (given that the human passed his swimming lessons in 1st grade :) ). Also, since a duck is not a human or vice versa, this is not an “is a” realationship, but instead an “is able” relationship and we can use an interface to illustrate that:
// Create ISwimable interface
public interface ISwimable
{
public void Swim();
}
// Have Human implement ISwimable Interface
public class Human : ISwimable
public void Swim()
{
//Human's implementation of Swim
Console.WriteLine("I'm a human swimming!");
}
// Have Duck implement ISwimable interface
public class Duck: ISwimable
{
public void Swim()
{
// Duck's implementation of Swim
Console.WriteLine("Quack! Quack! I'm a Duck swimming!")
}
}
//Now they can both be used in places where you just need an object that has the ability "to swim"
public void ShowHowYouSwim(ISwimable somethingThatCanSwim)
{
somethingThatCanSwim.Swim();
}
public void Main()
{
var human = new Human();
var duck = new Duck();
var listOfThingsThatCanSwim = new List<ISwimable>();
listOfThingsThatCanSwim.Add(duck);
listOfThingsThatCanSwim.Add(human);
foreach (var something in listOfThingsThatCanSwim)
{
ShowHowYouSwim(something);
}
}
// So at runtime the correct implementation of something.Swim() will be called
// Output:
// Quack! Quack! I'm a Duck swimming!
// I'm a human swimming!
Using interfaces like the code above will allow you to pass an object into a method that “is able” to do something. The code doesn’t care how it does it…All it knows is that it can call the Swim method on that object and that object will know which behavior take at run-time based on its type.
Once again, this helps your code stay DRY so that you would not have to write multiple methods that are calling the object to preform the same core function (ShowHowHumanSwims(human), ShowHowDuckSwims(duck), etc.)
Using an interface here allows the calling methods to not have to worry about what type is which or how the behavior is implemented. It just knows that given the interface, each object will have to have implemented the Swim method so it is safe to call it in its own code and allow the behavior of the Swim method be handled within its own class.
Summary:
So my main rule of thumb is use an abstract class when you want to implement a “default” functionality for a class hierarchy or/and the classes or types you are working with share a “is a” relationship (ex. poodle “is a” type of dog).
On the other hand use an interface when you do not have an “is a” relationship but have types that share “the ability” to do something or have something (ex. Duck “is not” a human. However, duck and human share “the ability” to swim).
Another difference to note between abstract classes and interfaces is that a class can implement one to many interfaces but a class can only inherit from ONE abstract class (or any class for that matter). Yes, you can nest classes and have an inheritance hierarchy (which many programs do and should have) but you cannot inherit two classes in one derived class definition (this rule applies to C#. In some other languages you are able to do this, usually only because of the lack of interfaces in these languages).
Also remember when using interfaces to adhere to the Interface Segregation Principle (ISP). ISP states that no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use. For this reason interfaces should be focused on specific tasks and are usually very small (ex. IDisposable, IComparable ).
Another tip is if you are developing small, concise bits of functionality, use interfaces. If you are designing large functional units, use an abstract class.
Hope this clears things up for some people!
Also if you can think of any better examples or want to point something out, please do so in the comments below!

Interfaces should be small. Really small. If you're really breaking down your objects, then your interfaces will probably only contain a few very specific methods and properties.
Abstract classes are shortcuts. Are there things that all derivatives of PetBase share that you can code once and be done with? If yes, then it's time for an abstract class.
Abstract classes are also limiting. While they give you a great shortcut to producing child objects, any given object can only implement one abstract class. Many times, I find this a limitation of Abstract classes, and this is why I use lots of interfaces.
Abstract classes may contain several interfaces. Your PetBase abstract class may implement IPet (pets have owners) and IDigestion (pets eat, or at least they should). However, PetBase will probably not implement IMammal, since not all pets are mammals and not all mammals are pets. You may add a MammalPetBase that extends PetBase and add IMammal. FishBase could have PetBase and add IFish. IFish would have ISwim and IUnderwaterBreather as interfaces.
Yes, my example is extensively over-complicated for the simple example, but that's part of the great thing about how interfaces and abstract classes work together.

The case for Base Classes over Interfaces was explained well in the Submain .NET Coding Guidelines:
Base Classes vs. Interfaces
An interface type is a partial
description of a value, potentially
supported by many object types. Use
base classes instead of interfaces
whenever possible. From a versioning
perspective, classes are more flexible
than interfaces. With a class, you can
ship Version 1.0 and then in Version
2.0 add a new method to the class. As long as the method is not abstract,
any existing derived classes continue
to function unchanged.
Because interfaces do not support
implementation inheritance, the
pattern that applies to classes does
not apply to interfaces. Adding a
method to an interface is equivalent
to adding an abstract method to a base
class; any class that implements the
interface will break because the class
does not implement the new method.
Interfaces are appropriate in the
following situations:
Several unrelated classes want to support the protocol.
These classes already have established base classes (for
example,
some are user interface (UI) controls,
and some are XML Web services).
Aggregation is not appropriate or practicable. In all other
situations,
class inheritance is a better model.

One important difference is that you can only inherit one base class, but you can implement many interfaces. So you only want to use a base class if you are absolutely certain that you won't need to also inherit a different base class. Additionally, if you find your interface is getting large then you should start looking to break it up into a few logical pieces that define independent functionality, since there's no rule that your class can't implement them all (or that you can define a different interface that just inherits them all to group them).

When I first started learning about object-oriented programming, I made the easy and probably common mistake of using inheritance to share common behavior - even where that behavior was not essential to the nature of the object.
To further build on an example much used in this particular question, there are lots of things that are petable - girlfriends, cars, fuzzy blankets... - so I might have had a Petable class that provided this common behavior, and various classes inheriting from it.
However, being petable is not part of the nature of any of these objects. There are vastly more important concepts that are essential to their nature - the girlfriend is a person, the car is a land vehicle, the cat is a mammal...
Behaviors should be assigned first to interfaces (including the default interface of the class), and promoted to a base class only if they are (a) common to a large group of classes that are subsets of a larger class - in the same sense that "cat" and "person" are subsets of "mammal".
The catch is, after you understand object-oriented design sufficiently better than I did at first, you'll normally do this automatically without even thinking about it. So the bare truth of the statement "code to an interface, not an abstract class" becomes so obvious you have a hard time believing anyone would bother to say it - and start trying to read other meanings into it.
Another thing I'd add is that if a class is purely abstract - with no non-abstract, non-inherited members or methods exposed to child, parent, or client - then why is it a class? It could be replaced, in some cases by an interface and in other cases by Null.

Prefer interfaces over abstract classes
Rationale,
the main points to consider [two already mentioned here] are :
Interfaces are more flexible, because a class can implement multiple
interfaces. Since Java does not have multiple inheritance, using
abstract classes prevents your users from using any other class
hierarchy. In general, prefer interfaces when there are no default
implementations or state. Java collections offer good examples of
this (Map, Set, etc.).
Abstract classes have the advantage of allowing better forward
compatibility. Once clients use an interface, you cannot change it;
if they use an abstract class, you can still add behavior without
breaking existing code. If compatibility is a concern, consider using
abstract classes.
Even if you do have default implementations or internal state,
consider offering an interface and an abstract implementation of it.
This will assist clients, but still allow them greater freedom if
desired [1].
Of course, the subject has been discussed at length
elsewhere [2,3].
[1] It adds more code, of course, but if brevity is your primary concern, you probably should have avoided Java in the first place!
[2] Joshua Bloch, Effective Java, items 16-18.
[3] http://www.codeproject.com/KB/ar...

Previous comments about using abstract classes for common implementation is definitely on the mark. One benefit I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the use of interfaces makes it much easier to implement mock objects for the purpose of unit testing. Defining IPet and PetBase as Jason Cohen described enables you to mock different data conditions easily, without the overhead of a physical database (until you decide it's time to test the real thing).

Don't use a base class unless you know what it means, and that it applies in this case. If it applies, use it, otherwise, use interfaces. But note the answer about small interfaces.
Public Inheritance is overused in OOD and expresses a lot more than most developers realize or are willing to live up to. See the Liskov Substitutablity Principle
In short, if A "is a" B then A requires no more than B and delivers no less than B, for every method it exposes.

Another option to keep in mind is using the "has-a" relationship, aka "is implemented in terms of" or "composition." Sometimes this is a cleaner, more flexible way to structure things than using "is-a" inheritance.
It may not make as much sense logically to say that Dog and Cat both "have" a Pet, but it avoids common multiple inheritance pitfalls:
public class Pet
{
void Bathe();
void Train(Trick t);
}
public class Dog
{
private Pet pet;
public void Bathe() { pet.Bathe(); }
public void Train(Trick t) { pet.Train(t); }
}
public class Cat
{
private Pet pet;
public void Bathe() { pet.Bathe(); }
public void Train(Trick t) { pet.Train(t); }
}
Yes, this example shows that there is a lot of code duplication and lack of elegance involved in doing things this way. But one should also appreciate that this helps to keep Dog and Cat decoupled from the Pet class (in that Dog and Cat do not have access to the private members of Pet), and it leaves room for Dog and Cat to inherit from something else--possibly the Mammal class.
Composition is preferable when no private access is required and you don't need to refer to Dog and Cat using generic Pet references/pointers. Interfaces give you that generic reference capability and can help cut down on the verbosity of your code, but they can also obfuscate things when they are poorly organized. Inheritance is useful when you need private member access, and in using it you are committing yourself to highly coupling your Dog and Cat classes to your Pet class, which is a steep cost to pay.
Between inheritance, composition, and interfaces there is no one way that is always right, and it helps to consider how all three options can be used in harmony. Of the three, inheritance is typically the option that should be used the least often.

Conceptually, an interface is used to formally and semi-formally define a set of methods that an object will provide. Formally means a set of method names and signatures, and semi-formally means human readable documentation associated with those methods.
Interfaces are only descriptions of an API (after all, API stands for application programming interface), they can't contain any implementation, and it's not possible to use or run an interface. They only make explicit the contract of how you should interact with an object.
Classes provide an implementation, and they can declare that they implement zero, one or more Interfaces. If a class is intended to be inherited, the convention is to prefix the class name with "Base".
There is a distinction between a base class and an abstract base classes (ABC). ABCs mix interface and implementation together. Abstract outside of computer programming means "summary", that is "abstract == interface". An abstract base class can then describe both an interface, as well as an empty, partial or complete implementation that is intended to be inherited.
Opinions on when to use interfaces versus abstract base classes versus just classes is going to vary wildly based on both what you are developing, and which language you are developing in. Interfaces are often associated only with statically typed languages such as Java or C#, but dynamically typed languages can also have interfaces and abstract base classes. In Python for example, the distinction is made clear between a Class, which declares that it implements an interface, and an object, which is an instance of a class, and is said to provide that interface. It's possible in a dynamic language that two objects that are both instances of the same class, can declare that they provide completely different interfaces. In Python this is only possible for object attributes, while methods are shared state between all objects of a class. However, in Ruby, objects can have per-instance methods, so it's possible that the interface between two objects of the same class can vary as much as the programmer desires (however, Ruby doesn't have any explicit way of declaring Interfaces).
In dynamic languages the interface to an object is often implicitly assumed, either by introspecting an object and asking it what methods it provides (look before you leap) or preferably by simply attempting to use the desired interface on an object and catching exceptions if the object doesn't provide that interface (easier to ask forgiveness than permission). This can lead to "false positives" where two interfaces have the same method name, but are semantically different. However, the trade-off is that your code is more flexible since you don't need to over specify up-front to anticipate all possible uses of your code.

It depends on your requirements. If IPet is simple enough, I would prefer to implement that. Otherwise, if PetBase implements a ton of functionality you don't want to duplicate, then have at it.
The downside to implementing a base class is the requirement to override (or new) existing methods. This makes them virtual methods which means you have to be careful about how you use the object instance.
Lastly, the single inheritance of .NET kills me. A naive example: Say you're making a user control, so you inherit UserControl. But, now you're locked out of also inheriting PetBase. This forces you to reorganize, such as to make a PetBase class member, instead.

I usually don't implement either until I need one. I favor interfaces over abstract classes because that gives a little more flexibility. If there's common behavior in some of the inheriting classes I move that up and make an abstract base class. I don't see the need for both, since they essentially server the same purpose, and having both is a bad code smell (imho) that the solution has been over-engineered.

Regarding C#, in some senses interfaces and abstract classes can be interchangeable. However, the differences are: i) interfaces cannot implement code; ii) because of this, interfaces cannot call further up the stack to subclass; and iii) only can abstract class may be inherited on a class, whereas multiple interfaces may be implemented on a class.

By def, interface provides a layer to communicate with other code. All the public properties and methods of a class are by default implementing implicit interface. We can also define an interface as a role, when ever any class needs to play that role, it has to implement it giving it different forms of implementation depending on the class implementing it. Hence when you talk about interface, you are talking about polymorphism and when you are talking about base class, you are talking about inheritance. Two concepts of oops !!!

I've found that a pattern of Interface > Abstract > Concrete works in the following use-case:
1. You have a general interface (eg IPet)
2. You have a implementation that is less general (eg Mammal)
3. You have many concrete members (eg Cat, Dog, Ape)
The abstract class defines default shared attributes of the concrete classes, yet enforces the interface. For example:
public interface IPet{
public boolean hasHair();
public boolean walksUprights();
public boolean hasNipples();
}
Now, since all mammals have hair and nipples (AFAIK, I'm not a zoologist), we can roll this into the abstract base class
public abstract class Mammal() implements IPet{
#override
public walksUpright(){
throw new NotSupportedException("Walks Upright not implemented");
}
#override
public hasNipples(){return true}
#override
public hasHair(){return true}
And then the concrete classes merely define that they walk upright.
public class Ape extends Mammal(){
#override
public walksUpright(return true)
}
public class Catextends Mammal(){
#override
public walksUpright(return false)
}
This design is nice when there are lots of concrete classes, and you don't want to maintain boilerplate just to program to an interface. If new methods were added to the interface, it would break all of the resulting classes, so you are still getting the advantages of the interface approach.
In this case, the abstract could just as well be concrete; however, the abstract designation helps to emphasize that this pattern is being employed.

An inheritor of a base class should have an "is a" relationship. Interface represents An "implements a" relationship.
So only use a base class when your inheritors will maintain the is a relationship.

Use Interfaces to enforce a contract ACROSS families of unrelated classes. For example, you might have common access methods for classes that represent collections, but contain radically different data i.e. one class might represent a result set from a query, while the other might represent the images in a gallery. Also, you can implement multiple interfaces, thus allowing you to blend (and signify) the capabilities of the class.
Use Inheritance when the classes bear a common relationship and therefore have a similair structural and behavioural signature, i.e. Car, Motorbike, Truck and SUV are all types of road vehicle that might contain a number of wheels, a top speed

What is the purpose of declaring a type different to the type you are instantiating? [duplicate]

I have seen this mentioned a few times and I am not clear on what it means. When and why would you do this?
I know what interfaces do, but the fact I am not clear on this makes me think I am missing out on using them correctly.
Is it just so if you were to do:
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever()
You could use any class that implements IInterface? When would you need to do that? The only thing I can think of is if you have a method and you are unsure of what object will be passed except for it implementing IInterface. I cannot think how often you would need to do that.
Also, how could you write a method that takes in an object that implements an interface? Is that possible?

There are some wonderful answers on here to this questions that get into all sorts of great detail about interfaces and loosely coupling code, inversion of control and so on. There are some fairly heady discussions, so I'd like to take the opportunity to break things down a bit for understanding why an interface is useful.
When I first started getting exposed to interfaces, I too was confused about their relevance. I didn't understand why you needed them. If we're using a language like Java or C#, we already have inheritance and I viewed interfaces as a weaker form of inheritance and thought, "why bother?" In a sense I was right, you can think of interfaces as sort of a weak form of inheritance, but beyond that I finally understood their use as a language construct by thinking of them as a means of classifying common traits or behaviors that were exhibited by potentially many non-related classes of objects.
For example -- say you have a SIM game and have the following classes:
class HouseFly inherits Insect {
void FlyAroundYourHead(){}
void LandOnThings(){}
}
class Telemarketer inherits Person {
void CallDuringDinner(){}
void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo(){}
}
Clearly, these two objects have nothing in common in terms of direct inheritance. But, you could say they are both annoying.
Let's say our game needs to have some sort of random thing that annoys the game player when they eat dinner. This could be a HouseFly or a Telemarketer or both -- but how do you allow for both with a single function? And how do you ask each different type of object to "do their annoying thing" in the same way?
The key to realize is that both a Telemarketer and HouseFly share a common loosely interpreted behavior even though they are nothing alike in terms of modeling them. So, let's make an interface that both can implement:
interface IPest {
void BeAnnoying();
}
class HouseFly inherits Insect implements IPest {
void FlyAroundYourHead(){}
void LandOnThings(){}
void BeAnnoying() {
FlyAroundYourHead();
LandOnThings();
}
}
class Telemarketer inherits Person implements IPest {
void CallDuringDinner(){}
void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo(){}
void BeAnnoying() {
CallDuringDinner();
ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo();
}
}
We now have two classes that can each be annoying in their own way. And they do not need to derive from the same base class and share common inherent characteristics -- they simply need to satisfy the contract of IPest -- that contract is simple. You just have to BeAnnoying. In this regard, we can model the following:
class DiningRoom {
DiningRoom(Person[] diningPeople, IPest[] pests) { ... }
void ServeDinner() {
when diningPeople are eating,
foreach pest in pests
pest.BeAnnoying();
}
}
Here we have a dining room that accepts a number of diners and a number of pests -- note the use of the interface. This means that in our little world, a member of the pests array could actually be a Telemarketer object or a HouseFly object.
The ServeDinner method is called when dinner is served and our people in the dining room are supposed to eat. In our little game, that's when our pests do their work -- each pest is instructed to be annoying by way of the IPest interface. In this way, we can easily have both Telemarketers and HouseFlys be annoying in each of their own ways -- we care only that we have something in the DiningRoom object that is a pest, we don't really care what it is and they could have nothing in common with other.
This very contrived pseudo-code example (that dragged on a lot longer than I anticipated) is simply meant to illustrate the kind of thing that finally turned the light on for me in terms of when we might use an interface. I apologize in advance for the silliness of the example, but hope that it helps in your understanding. And, to be sure, the other posted answers you've received here really cover the gamut of the use of interfaces today in design patterns and development methodologies.

The specific example I used to give to students is that they should write
List myList = new ArrayList(); // programming to the List interface
instead of
ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(); // this is bad
These look exactly the same in a short program, but if you go on to use myList 100 times in your program you can start to see a difference. The first declaration ensures that you only call methods on myList that are defined by the List interface (so no ArrayList specific methods). If you've programmed to the interface this way, later on you can decide that you really need
List myList = new TreeList();
and you only have to change your code in that one spot. You already know that the rest of your code doesn't do anything that will be broken by changing the implementation because you programmed to the interface.
The benefits are even more obvious (I think) when you're talking about method parameters and return values. Take this for example:
public ArrayList doSomething(HashMap map);
That method declaration ties you to two concrete implementations (ArrayList and HashMap). As soon as that method is called from other code, any changes to those types probably mean you're going to have to change the calling code as well. It would be better to program to the interfaces.
public List doSomething(Map map);
Now it doesn't matter what kind of List you return, or what kind of Map is passed in as a parameter. Changes that you make inside the doSomething method won't force you to change the calling code.

Programming to an interface is saying, "I need this functionality and I don't care where it comes from."
Consider (in Java), the List interface versus the ArrayList and LinkedList concrete classes. If all I care about is that I have a data structure containing multiple data items that I should access via iteration, I'd pick a List (and that's 99% of the time). If I know that I need constant-time insert/delete from either end of the list, I might pick the LinkedList concrete implementation (or more likely, use the Queue interface). If I know I need random access by index, I'd pick the ArrayList concrete class.

Programming to an interface has absolutely nothing to do with abstract interfaces like we see in Java or .NET. It isn't even an OOP concept.
What it means is don't go messing around with the internals of an object or data structure. Use the Abstract Program Interface, or API, to interact with your data. In Java or C# that means using public properties and methods instead of raw field access. For C that means using functions instead of raw pointers.
EDIT: And with databases it means using views and stored procedures instead of direct table access.

Using interfaces is a key factor in making your code easily testable in addition to removing unnecessary couplings between your classes. By creating an interface that defines the operations on your class, you allow classes that want to use that functionality the ability to use it without depending on your implementing class directly. If later on you decide to change and use a different implementation, you need only change the part of the code where the implementation is instantiated. The rest of the code need not change because it depends on the interface, not the implementing class.
This is very useful in creating unit tests. In the class under test you have it depend on the interface and inject an instance of the interface into the class (or a factory that allows it to build instances of the interface as needed) via the constructor or a property settor. The class uses the provided (or created) interface in its methods. When you go to write your tests, you can mock or fake the interface and provide an interface that responds with data configured in your unit test. You can do this because your class under test deals only with the interface, not your concrete implementation. Any class implementing the interface, including your mock or fake class, will do.
EDIT: Below is a link to an article where Erich Gamma discusses his quote, "Program to an interface, not an implementation."
http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/designprinciples.html

You should look into Inversion of Control:
Martin Fowler: Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern
Wikipedia: Inversion of Control
In such a scenario, you wouldn't write this:
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever();
You would write something like this:
IInterface classRef = container.Resolve<IInterface>();
This would go into a rule-based setup in the container object, and construct the actual object for you, which could be ObjectWhatever. The important thing is that you could replace this rule with something that used another type of object altogether, and your code would still work.
If we leave IoC off the table, you can write code that knows that it can talk to an object that does something specific, but not which type of object or how it does it.
This would come in handy when passing parameters.
As for your parenthesized question "Also, how could you write a method that takes in an object that implements an Interface? Is that possible?", in C# you would simply use the interface type for the parameter type, like this:
public void DoSomethingToAnObject(IInterface whatever) { ... }
This plugs right into the "talk to an object that does something specific." The method defined above knows what to expect from the object, that it implements everything in IInterface, but it doesn't care which type of object it is, only that it adheres to the contract, which is what an interface is.
For instance, you're probably familiar with calculators and have probably used quite a few in your days, but most of the time they're all different. You, on the other hand, knows how a standard calculator should work, so you're able to use them all, even if you can't use the specific features that each calculator has that none of the other has.
This is the beauty of interfaces. You can write a piece of code, that knows that it will get objects passed to it that it can expect certain behavior from. It doesn't care one hoot what kind of object it is, only that it supports the behavior needed.
Let me give you a concrete example.
We have a custom-built translation system for windows forms. This system loops through controls on a form and translate text in each. The system knows how to handle basic controls, like the-type-of-control-that-has-a-Text-property, and similar basic stuff, but for anything basic, it falls short.
Now, since controls inherit from pre-defined classes that we have no control over, we could do one of three things:
Build support for our translation system to detect specifically which type of control it is working with, and translate the correct bits (maintenance nightmare)
Build support into base classes (impossible, since all the controls inherit from different pre-defined classes)
Add interface support
So we did nr. 3. All our controls implement ILocalizable, which is an interface that gives us one method, the ability to translate "itself" into a container of translation text/rules. As such, the form doesn't need to know which kind of control it has found, only that it implements the specific interface, and knows that there is a method where it can call to localize the control.

Code to the Interface Not the Implementation has NOTHING to do with Java, nor its Interface construct.
This concept was brought to prominence in the Patterns / Gang of Four books but was most probably around well before that. The concept certainly existed well before Java ever existed.
The Java Interface construct was created to aid in this idea (among other things), and people have become too focused on the construct as the centre of the meaning rather than the original intent. However, it is the reason we have public and private methods and attributes in Java, C++, C#, etc.
It means just interact with an object or system's public interface. Don't worry or even anticipate how it does what it does internally. Don't worry about how it is implemented. In object-oriented code, it is why we have public vs. private methods/attributes. We are intended to use the public methods because the private methods are there only for use internally, within the class. They make up the implementation of the class and can be changed as required without changing the public interface. Assume that regarding functionality, a method on a class will perform the same operation with the same expected result every time you call it with the same parameters. It allows the author to change how the class works, its implementation, without breaking how people interact with it.
And you can program to the interface, not the implementation without ever using an Interface construct. You can program to the interface not the implementation in C++, which does not have an Interface construct. You can integrate two massive enterprise systems much more robustly as long as they interact through public interfaces (contracts) rather than calling methods on objects internal to the systems. The interfaces are expected to always react the same expected way given the same input parameters; if implemented to the interface and not the implementation. The concept works in many places.
Shake the thought that Java Interfaces have anything what-so-ever to do with the concept of 'Program to the Interface, Not the Implementation'. They can help apply the concept, but they are not the concept.

It sounds like you understand how interfaces work but are unsure of when to use them and what advantages they offer. Here are a few examples of when an interface would make sense:
// if I want to add search capabilities to my application and support multiple search
// engines such as Google, Yahoo, Live, etc.
interface ISearchProvider
{
string Search(string keywords);
}
then I could create GoogleSearchProvider, YahooSearchProvider, LiveSearchProvider, etc.
// if I want to support multiple downloads using different protocols
// HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, etc.
interface IUrlDownload
{
void Download(string url)
}
// how about an image loader for different kinds of images JPG, GIF, PNG, etc.
interface IImageLoader
{
Bitmap LoadImage(string filename)
}
then create JpegImageLoader, GifImageLoader, PngImageLoader, etc.
Most add-ins and plugin systems work off interfaces.
Another popular use is for the Repository pattern. Say I want to load a list of zip codes from different sources
interface IZipCodeRepository
{
IList<ZipCode> GetZipCodes(string state);
}
then I could create an XMLZipCodeRepository, SQLZipCodeRepository, CSVZipCodeRepository, etc. For my web applications, I often create XML repositories early on so I can get something up and running before the SQL Database is ready. Once the database is ready I write an SQLRepository to replace the XML version. The rest of my code remains unchanged since it runs solely off of interfaces.
Methods can accept interfaces such as:
PrintZipCodes(IZipCodeRepository zipCodeRepository, string state)
{
foreach (ZipCode zipCode in zipCodeRepository.GetZipCodes(state))
{
Console.WriteLine(zipCode.ToString());
}
}

It makes your code a lot more extensible and easier to maintain when you have sets of similar classes. I am a junior programmer, so I am no expert, but I just finished a project that required something similar.
I work on client side software that talks to a server running a medical device. We are developing a new version of this device that has some new components that the customer must configure at times. There are two types of new components, and they are different, but they are also very similar. Basically, I had to create two config forms, two lists classes, two of everything.
I decided that it would be best to create an abstract base class for each control type that would hold almost all of the real logic, and then derived types to take care of the differences between the two components. However, the base classes would not have been able to perform operations on these components if I had to worry about types all of the time (well, they could have, but there would have been an "if" statement or switch in every method).
I defined a simple interface for these components and all of the base classes talk to this interface. Now when I change something, it pretty much 'just works' everywhere and I have no code duplication.

A lot of explanation out there, but to make it even more simpler. Take for instance a List. One can implement a list with as:
An internal array
A linked list
Other implementations
By building to an interface, say a List. You only code as to definition of List or what List means in reality.
You could use any type of implementation internally say an array implementation. But suppose you wish to change the implementation for some reason say a bug or performance. Then you just have to change the declaration List<String> ls = new ArrayList<String>() to List<String> ls = new LinkedList<String>().
Nowhere else in code, will you have to change anything else; Because everything else was built on the definition of List.

If you program in Java, JDBC is a good example. JDBC defines a set of interfaces but says nothing about the implementation. Your applications can be written against this set of interfaces. In theory, you pick some JDBC driver and your application would just work. If you discover there's a faster or "better" or cheaper JDBC driver or for whatever reason, you can again in theory re-configure your property file, and without having to make any change in your application, your application would still work.

I am a late comer to this question, but I want to mention here that the line "Program to an interface, not an implementation" had some good discussion in the GoF (Gang of Four) Design Patterns book.
It stated, on p. 18:
Program to an interface, not an implementation
Don't declare variables to be instances of particular concrete classes. Instead, commit only to an interface defined by an abstract class. You will find this to be a common theme of the design patterns in this book.
and above that, it began with:
There are two benefits to manipulating objects solely in terms of the interface defined by abstract classes:
Clients remain unaware of the specific types of objects they use, as long as the objects adhere to the interface that clients expect.
Clients remain unaware of the classes that implement these objects. Clients only know about the abstract class(es) defining the interface.
So in other words, don't write it your classes so that it has a quack() method for ducks, and then a bark() method for dogs, because they are too specific for a particular implementation of a class (or subclass). Instead, write the method using names that are general enough to be used in the base class, such as giveSound() or move(), so that they can be used for ducks, dogs, or even cars, and then the client of your classes can just say .giveSound() rather than thinking about whether to use quack() or bark() or even determine the type before issuing the correct message to be sent to the object.

Programming to Interfaces is awesome, it promotes loose coupling. As #lassevk mentioned, Inversion of Control is a great use of this.
In addition, look into SOLID principals. here is a video series
It goes through a hard coded (strongly coupled example) then looks at interfaces, finally progressing to a IoC/DI tool (NInject)

To add to the existing posts, sometimes coding to interfaces helps on large projects when developers work on separate components simultaneously. All you need is to define interfaces upfront and write code to them while other developers write code to the interface you are implementing.

It can be advantageous to program to interfaces, even when we are not depending on abstractions.
Programming to interfaces forces us to use a contextually appropriate subset of an object. That helps because it:
prevents us from doing contextually inappropriate things, and
lets us safely change the implementation in the future.
For example, consider a Person class that implements the Friend and the Employee interface.
class Person implements AbstractEmployee, AbstractFriend {
}
In the context of the person's birthday, we program to the Friend interface, to prevent treating the person like an Employee.
function party() {
const friend: Friend = new Person("Kathryn");
friend.HaveFun();
}
In the context of the person's work, we program to the Employee interface, to prevent blurring workplace boundaries.
function workplace() {
const employee: Employee = new Person("Kathryn");
employee.DoWork();
}
Great. We have behaved appropriately in different contexts, and our software is working well.
Far into the future, if our business changes to work with dogs, we can change the software fairly easily. First, we create a Dog class that implements both Friend and Employee. Then, we safely change new Person() to new Dog(). Even if both functions have thousands of lines of code, that simple edit will work because we know the following are true:
Function party uses only the Friend subset of Person.
Function workplace uses only the Employee subset of Person.
Class Dog implements both the Friend and Employee interfaces.
On the other hand, if either party or workplace were to have programmed against Person, there would be a risk of both having Person-specific code. Changing from Person to Dog would require us to comb through the code to extirpate any Person-specific code that Dog does not support.
The moral: programming to interfaces helps our code to behave appropriately and to be ready for change. It also prepares our code to depend on abstractions, which brings even more advantages.

If I'm writing a new class Swimmer to add the functionality swim() and need to use an object of class say Dog, and this Dog class implements interface Animal which declares swim().
At the top of the hierarchy (Animal), it's very abstract while at the bottom (Dog) it's very concrete. The way I think about "programming to interfaces" is that, as I write Swimmer class, I want to write my code against the interface that's as far up that hierarchy which in this case is an Animal object. An interface is free from implementation details and thus makes your code loosely-coupled.
The implementation details can be changed with time, however, it would not affect the remaining code since all you are interacting with is with the interface and not the implementation. You don't care what the implementation is like... all you know is that there will be a class that would implement the interface.

It is also good for Unit Testing, you can inject your own classes (that meet the requirements of the interface) into a class that depends on it

Short story: A postman is asked to go home after home and receive the covers contains (letters, documents, cheques, gift cards, application, love letter) with the address written on it to deliver.
Suppose there is no cover and ask the postman to go home after home and receive all the things and deliver to other people, the postman can get confused.
So better wrap it with cover (in our story it is the interface) then he will do his job fine.
Now the postman's job is to receive and deliver the covers only (he wouldn't bothered what is inside in the cover).
Create a type of interface not actual type, but implement it with actual type.
To create to interface means your components get Fit into the rest of code easily
I give you an example.
you have the AirPlane interface as below.
interface Airplane{
parkPlane();
servicePlane();
}
Suppose you have methods in your Controller class of Planes like
parkPlane(Airplane plane)
and
servicePlane(Airplane plane)
implemented in your program. It will not BREAK your code.
I mean, it need not to change as long as it accepts arguments as AirPlane.
Because it will accept any Airplane despite actual type, flyer, highflyr, fighter, etc.
Also, in a collection:
List<Airplane> plane; // Will take all your planes.
The following example will clear your understanding.
You have a fighter plane that implements it, so
public class Fighter implements Airplane {
public void parkPlane(){
// Specific implementations for fighter plane to park
}
public void servicePlane(){
// Specific implementatoins for fighter plane to service.
}
}
The same thing for HighFlyer and other clasess:
public class HighFlyer implements Airplane {
public void parkPlane(){
// Specific implementations for HighFlyer plane to park
}
public void servicePlane(){
// specific implementatoins for HighFlyer plane to service.
}
}
Now think your controller classes using AirPlane several times,
Suppose your Controller class is ControlPlane like below,
public Class ControlPlane{
AirPlane plane;
// so much method with AirPlane reference are used here...
}
Here magic comes as you may make your new AirPlane type instances as many as you want and you are not changing the code of ControlPlane class.
You can add an instance...
JumboJetPlane // implementing AirPlane interface.
AirBus // implementing AirPlane interface.
You may remove instances of previously created types too.

So, just to get this right, the advantage of a interface is that I can separate the calling of a method from any particular class. Instead creating a instance of the interface, where the implementation is given from whichever class I choose that implements that interface. Thus allowing me to have many classes, which have similar but slightly different functionality and in some cases (the cases related to the intention of the interface) not care which object it is.
For example, I could have a movement interface. A method which makes something 'move' and any object (Person, Car, Cat) that implements the movement interface could be passed in and told to move. Without the method every knowing the type of class it is.

Imagine you have a product called 'Zebra' that can be extended by plugins. It finds the plugins by searching for DLLs in some directory. It loads all those DLLs and uses reflection to find any classes that implement IZebraPlugin, and then calls the methods of that interface to communicate with the plugins.
This makes it completely independent of any specific plugin class - it doesn't care what the classes are. It only cares that they fulfill the interface specification.
Interfaces are a way of defining points of extensibility like this. Code that talks to an interface is more loosely coupled - in fact it is not coupled at all to any other specific code. It can inter-operate with plugins written years later by people who have never met the original developer.
You could instead use a base class with virtual functions - all plugins would be derived from the base class. But this is much more limiting because a class can only have one base class, whereas it can implement any number of interfaces.

C++ explanation.
Think of an interface as your classes public methods.
You then could create a template that 'depends' on these public methods in order to carry out it's own function (it makes function calls defined in the classes public interface). Lets say this template is a container, like a Vector class, and the interface it depends on is a search algorithm.
Any algorithm class that defines the functions/interface Vector makes calls to will satisfy the 'contract' (as someone explained in the original reply). The algorithms don't even need to be of the same base class; the only requirement is that the functions/methods that the Vector depends on (interface) is defined in your algorithm.
The point of all of this is that you could supply any different search algorithm/class just as long as it supplied the interface that Vector depends on (bubble search, sequential search, quick search).
You might also want to design other containers (lists, queues) that would harness the same search algorithm as Vector by having them fulfill the interface/contract that your search algorithms depends on.
This saves time (OOP principle 'code reuse') as you are able to write an algorithm once instead of again and again and again specific to every new object you create without over-complicating the issue with an overgrown inheritance tree.
As for 'missing out' on how things operate; big-time (at least in C++), as this is how most of the Standard TEMPLATE Library's framework operates.
Of course when using inheritance and abstract classes the methodology of programming to an interface changes; but the principle is the same, your public functions/methods are your classes interface.
This is a huge topic and one of the the cornerstone principles of Design Patterns.

In Java these concrete classes all implement the CharSequence interface:
CharBuffer, String, StringBuffer, StringBuilder
These concrete classes do not have a common parent class other than Object, so there is nothing that relates them, other than the fact they each have something to do with arrays of characters, representing such, or manipulating such. For instance, the characters of String cannot be changed once a String object is instantiated, whereas the characters of StringBuffer or StringBuilder can be edited.
Yet each one of these classes is capable of suitably implementing the CharSequence interface methods:
char charAt(int index)
int length()
CharSequence subSequence(int start, int end)
String toString()
In some cases, Java class library classes that used to accept String have been revised to now accept the CharSequence interface. So if you have an instance of StringBuilder, instead of extracting a String object (which means instantiating a new object instance), it can instead just pass the StringBuilder itself as it implements the CharSequence interface.
The Appendable interface that some classes implement has much the same kind of benefit for any situation where characters can be appended to an instance of the underlying concrete class object instance. All of these concrete classes implement the Appendable interface:
BufferedWriter, CharArrayWriter, CharBuffer, FileWriter, FilterWriter, LogStream, OutputStreamWriter, PipedWriter, PrintStream, PrintWriter, StringBuffer, StringBuilder, StringWriter, Writer

Previous answers focus on programming to an abstraction for the sake of extensibility and loose coupling. While these are very important points,
readability is equally important. Readability allows others (and your future self) to understand the code with minimal effort. This is why readability leverages abstractions.
An abstraction is, by definition, simpler than its implementation. An abstraction omits detail in order to convey the essence or purpose of a thing, but nothing more.
Because abstractions are simpler, I can fit a lot more of them in my head at one time, compared to implementations.
As a programmer (in any language) I walk around with a general idea of a List in my head at all times. In particular, a List allows random access, duplicate elements, and maintains order. When I see a declaration like this: List myList = new ArrayList() I think, cool, this is a List that's being used in the (basic) way that I understand; and I don't have to think any more about it.
On the other hand, I do not carry around the specific implementation details of ArrayList in my head. So when I see, ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(). I think, uh-oh, this ArrayList must be used in a way that isn't covered by the List interface. Now I have to track down all the usages of this ArrayList to understand why, because otherwise I won't be able to fully understand this code. It gets even more confusing when I discover that 100% of the usages of this ArrayList do conform to the List interface. Then I'm left wondering... was there some code relying on ArrayList implementation details that got deleted? Was the programmer who instantiated it just incompetent? Is this application locked into that specific implementation in some way at runtime? A way that I don't understand?
I'm now confused and uncertain about this application, and all we're talking about is a simple List. What if this was a complex business object ignoring its interface? Then my knowledge of the business domain is insufficient to understand the purpose of the code.
So even when I need a List strictly within a private method (nothing that would break other applications if it changed, and I could easily find/replace every usage in my IDE) it still benefits readability to program to an abstraction. Because abstractions are simpler than implementation details. You could say that programming to abstractions is one way of adhering to the KISS principle.

An interface is like a contract, where you want your implementation class to implement methods written in the contract (interface). Since Java does not provide multiple inheritance, "programming to interface" is a good way to achieve multiple inheritance.
If you have a class A that is already extending some other class B, but you want that class A to also follow certain guidelines or implement a certain contract, then you can do so by the "programming to interface" strategy.

Q: - ... "Could you use any class that implements an interface?"
A: - Yes.
Q: - ... "When would you need to do that?"
A: - Each time you need a class(es) that implements interface(s).
Note: We couldn't instantiate an interface not implemented by a class - True.
Why?
Because the interface has only method prototypes, not definitions (just functions names, not their logic)
AnIntf anInst = new Aclass();
// we could do this only if Aclass implements AnIntf.
// anInst will have Aclass reference.
Note: Now we could understand what happened if Bclass and Cclass implemented same Dintf.
Dintf bInst = new Bclass();
// now we could call all Dintf functions implemented (defined) in Bclass.
Dintf cInst = new Cclass();
// now we could call all Dintf functions implemented (defined) in Cclass.
What we have: Same interface prototypes (functions names in interface), and call different implementations.
Bibliography:
Prototypes - wikipedia

program to an interface is a term from the GOF book. i would not directly say it has to do with java interface but rather real interfaces. to achieve clean layer separation, you need to create some separation between systems for example: Let's say you had a concrete database you want to use, you would never "program to the database" , instead you would "program to the storage interface". Likewise you would never "program to a Web Service" but rather you would program to a "client interface". this is so you can easily swap things out.
i find these rules help me:
1. we use a java interface when we have multiple types of an object. if i just have single object, i dont see the point. if there are at least two concrete implementations of some idea, then i would use a java interface.
2. if as i stated above, you want to bring decoupling from an external system (storage system) to your own system (local DB) then also use a interface.
notice how there are two ways to consider when to use them.

Coding to an interface is a philosophy, rather than specific language constructs or design patterns - it instructs you what is the correct order of steps to follow in order to create better software systems (e.g. more resilient, more testable, more scalable, more extendible, and other nice traits).
What it actually means is:
===
Before jumping to implementations and coding (the HOW) - think of the WHAT:
What black boxes should make up your system,
What is each box' responsibility,
What are the ways each "client" (that is, one of those other boxes, 3rd party "boxes", or even humans) should communicate with it (the API of each box).
After you figure the above, go ahead and implement those boxes (the HOW).
Thinking first of what a box' is and what its API, leads the developer to distil the box' responsibility, and to mark for himself and future developers the difference between what is its exposed details ("API") and it's hidden details ("implementation details"), which is a very important differentiation to have.
One immediate and easily noticeable gain is the team can then change and improve implementations without affecting the general architecture. It also makes the system MUCH more testable (it goes well with the TDD approach).
===
Beyond the traits I've mentioned above, you also save A LOT OF TIME going this direction.
Micro Services and DDD, when done right, are great examples of "Coding to an interface", however the concept wins in every pattern from monoliths to "serverless", from BE to FE, from OOP to functional, etc....
I strongly recommend this approach for Software Engineering (and I basically believe it makes total sense in other fields as well).

Program to an interface allows to change implementation of contract defined by interface seamlessly. It allows loose coupling between contract and specific implementations.
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever()
You could use any class that implements IInterface? When would you need to do that?
Have a look at this SE question for good example.
Why should the interface for a Java class be preferred?
does using an Interface hit performance?
if so how much?
Yes. It will have slight performance overhead in sub-seconds. But if your application has requirement to change the implementation of interface dynamically, don't worry about performance impact.
how can you avoid it without having to maintain two bits of code?
Don't try to avoid multiple implementations of interface if your application need them. In absence of tight coupling of interface with one specific implementation, you may have to deploy the patch to change one implementation to other implementation.
One good use case: Implementation of Strategy pattern:
Real World Example of the Strategy Pattern

"Program to interface" means don't provide hard code right the way, meaning your code should be extended without breaking the previous functionality. Just extensions, not editing the previous code.

Also I see a lot of good and explanatory answers here, so I want to give my point of view here, including some extra information what I noticed when using this method.
Unit testing
For the last two years, I have written a hobby project and I did not write unit tests for it. After writing about 50K lines I found out it would be really necessary to write unit tests.
I did not use interfaces (or very sparingly) ... and when I made my first unit test, I found out it was complicated. Why?
Because I had to make a lot of class instances, used for input as class variables and/or parameters. So the tests look more like integration tests (having to make a complete 'framework' of classes since all was tied together).
Fear of interfaces
So I decided to use interfaces. My fear was that I had to implement all functionality everywhere (in all used classes) multiple times. In some way this is true, however, by using inheritance it can be reduced a lot.
Combination of interfaces and inheritance
I found out the combination is very good to be used. I give a very simple example.
public interface IPricable
{
int Price { get; }
}
public interface ICar : IPricable
public abstract class Article
{
public int Price { get { return ... } }
}
public class Car : Article, ICar
{
// Price does not need to be defined here
}
This way copying code is not necessary, while still having the benefit of using a car as interface (ICar).

Why do we need to have Object class as baseclass for all the classes?

Either in C# or Java or in any other language which follows oops concepts generally has 'Object' as super class for it by default. Why do we need to have Object as base class for all the classes we create?
When multiple inheritance is not possible in a language such as C# or Java how can we derive our class from another class when it is already derived from Object class. This question may look like silly but wanted to know some experts opinions on it.

Having a single-rooted type hierarchy can be handy in various ways. In particular, before generics came along, it was the only way that something like ArrayList would work. With generics, there's significantly less advantage to it - although it could still be useful in some situations, I suspect. EDIT: As an example, LINQ to XML's construction model is very "loose" in terms of being specified via object... but it works really well.
As for deriving from different classes - you derive directly from one class, but that will in turn derive indirectly from another one, and so on up to Object.
Note that the things which "all objects have in common" such as hash code, equality and monitors count as another design decision which I would question the wisdom of. Without a single rooted hierarchy these design decisions possibly wouldn't have been made the same way ;)

The fact that every class inherits object ensured by the compiler.
Meaning that is you write:
class A {}
It will compile like:
class A : Object{}
But if you state:
class B : A {}
Object will be in the hierarchy of B but not directly - so there is still no multiple inheritance.

In short
1) The Object class defines the basic state and behavior that all objects must have, such as the ability to compare oneself to another object, to convert to a string, to wait on a condition variable, to notify other objects that a condition variable has changed, and to return the object's class.
2) You can have B extend C, and A extend B. A is the child class of B, and B is the child class of C. Naturally, A is also a child class of C.

Well, the multiple inheritance of Object does not apply - you can think of it as:
"If a type doesn't have a base type, then implicitly inject Object".
Thus, applying the rule ad-nauseam, all types inherit from object once and once only - since at the bottom of the hierarchy must be a type that has no base; and therefore which will implicitly inherit from Object.
As for why these languages/frameworks have this as a feature, I have a few reasons:
1) The clue's in the name 'Object Oriented'. Everything is an object, therefore everything should have 'Object' (or equivalent) at it's core otherwise the design principle would be broken from the get-go.
2) Allows the framework to provide hooks for common operations that all types should/might need to support. Such as hash-code generation, string output for debugging etc etc.
3) It means that you can avoid resorting to nasty type casts that can break stuff - like (((int *)(void*))value) - since you have a nice friendly supertype for everything
There's probably loads more than this - and in the time it's taken me to write this 6 new answers have been posted; so I'll leave it there and hope that better people than I can explain in more detail and perhaps better :)

Regarding the first part of your question, it's how classes receive common properties and methods. It's also how we can have strongly-typed parameters to functions that can accept any object.
Regarding your second question, you simply derive your class from the other class; it will then be a descendant of that class, which is in turn a descendant of Object. There's no conflict.

You have the Object base class because amongst others because the Object class has methods (like, in .NET, GetHashCode(), which contain common functionality every object should have).
Multiple inheritance is indeed not possible, but it is possible to derive class A from class B, because A may not directly derive from Object, but B does, so all classes ultimately derive from Object, if you go far enough in the class' inheritance hierarchy.

Just to compare, let's take a look at a language that doesn't enforce a single root class - Objective-C. In most Objective-C environments there will be three root classes available (Object, NSObject and NSProxy), and you can write your own root class by just not declaring a superclass. In fact Object is deprecated and only exists for legacy reasons, but it's informative to include it in this discussion. The language is duck typed, so you can declare a variable's type as "any old object" (written as id), then it doesn't even matter what root class it has.
OK, so we've got all of these base classes. In fact, even for the compiler and runtime libraries to be able to get anywhere they need some common behaviour: the root classes must all have a pointer ivar called isa that references a class definition structure. Without that pointer, the compiler doesn't know how to create an object structure, and the runtime library won't know how to find out what class an object is, what its instance variables are, what messages it responds to and so forth.
So even though Objective-C claims to have multiple root classes, in fact there's some behaviour that all objects must implement. So in all but name, there's really a common primitive superclass, albeit one with less API than java.lang.Object.
N.B. as it happens both NSObject and NSProxy do provide a rich API similar to java.lang.Object, via a protocol (like a Java interface). Most API that claims to deal with the id type (remember, that's the "any old object" type) will actually assume it responds to messages in the protocol. By the time you actually need to use an object, rather than just create it with a compiler, it turns out to be useful to fold all of this common behaviour like equality, hashing, string descriptions etc. into the root class.

Well multiple inheritance is a totally different ball game.
An example of multiple inheritance:-
class Root
{
public abstract void Test();
}
class leftChild : Root
{
public override void Test()
{
}
}
class rightChild : Root
{
public override void Test()
{
}
}
class leafChild : rightChild, leftChild
{
}
The problem here being leafChild inherits Test of rightChild and leftChild. So a case of conflicting methods. This is called a diamond problem.
But when you use the object as super class the hierarchy goes like this:-
class Object
{
public abstract void hashcode();
//other methods
}
class leftChild : Object
{
public override void hashcode()
{
}
}
class rightChild : Object
{
public override void hashcode()
{
}
}
So here we derive both classes from Object but that's the end of it.

It acts like a template for all the objects which will derive from it, so that some common functionality required by every object is provided by default. For example cloning, hashcode and object locking etc.

C#: Specify that a function arg must inherit from one class, and implement an interface?

I'm making a game where each Actor is represented by a GameObjectController. Game Objects that can partake in combat implement ICombatant. How can I specify that arguments to a combat function must inherit from GameObjectController and implement ICombatant? Or does this indicate that my code is structured poorly?
public void ComputeAttackUpdate(ICombatant attacker, AttackType attackType, ICombatant victim)
In the above code, I want attacker and victim to inherit from GameObjectController and implement ICombatant. Is this syntactically possible?

I'd say it probably indicates you could restructure somehow, like, have a base Combatant class that attacker and victim inherit from, which inherits from GameObjectController and implements ICombatant.
however, you could do something like
ComputeAttackUpdate<T,U>(T attacker, AttackType attackType, U victim)
where T: ICombatant, GameObjectController
where U: ICombatant, GameObjectController
Although I probably wouldn't.

Presumably all ICombatants must also be GameObjectControllers? If so, you might want to make a new interface IGameObjectController and then declare:
interface IGameObjectController
{
// Interface here.
}
interface ICombatant : IGameObjectController
{
// Interface for combat stuff here.
}
class GameObjectController : IGameObjectController
{
// Implementation here.
}
class FooActor : GameObjectController, ICombatant
{
// Implementation for fighting here.
}

It is only syntactically possible if GameObjectController itself implements ICombatant; otherwise, I would say you have a design problem.
Interfaces are intended to define the operations available on some object; base classes identify what that object is. You can only pick one or the other. If accepting the ICombatant interface as an argument is not sufficient, it might indicate that ICombatant is defined too narrowly (i.e. doesn't support everything you need it to do).
I'd have to see the specifics of what you're trying to do with this object in order to go into much more depth.
What if you did this instead:
public class GameObjectControllerCombatant : GameObjectController, ICombatant
{
// ...
}
Then derive your combatant classes from this instead of directly from GameObjectController. It still feels to me like it's breaking encapsulation, and the awkwardness of the name is a strong indication that your combatant classes are violating the Single Responsibility Principle... but it would work.

Well, sort of. You can write a generic method:
public void ComputeAttackUpdate<T>(T attacker, AttackType type, T victim)
where T : GameObjectController, ICombatant
That means T has to satisfy both the constraints you need. It's pretty grim though - and if the attacker and victim could be different (somewhat unrelated) types, you'd have to make it generic in two type parameters instead.
However, I would personally try to go for a more natural solution. This isn't a situation I find myself in, certainly. If you need to regard an argument in two different ways, perhaps you actually want two different methods?

If you control all the classes in question, and if GameObjectController doesn't define any fields, the cleanest approach would be to define an IGameObjectController (whose properties and methods match those of GameObjectController) and an ICombatantGameObjectContoller (which derives from both IGameObjectController and ICombatant). Every class which is to be usable in situations that require both interfaces must be explicitly declared as implementing ICombatantGameObjectController, even though adding that declaration wouldn't require adding any extra code. If one does that, one can use parameters, fields, and variables of type ICombatantGameObjectController without difficulty.
If you can't set up your classes and interfaces as described above, the approach offered by Jon Skeet is a generally good one, but with a nasty caveat: to call a generic function like Mr. Skeet's ComputeAttackUpdate, the compiler has to be able to determine a single type which it knows is compatible with the type of the object being passed in and with all of the constraints. If there are descendants of GameObjectController which implement ICombatant but do not derive from a common base type which also implements GameObjectController, it may be difficult to store such objects in a field and later pass them to generic routines. There is a way, and if you need to I can explain it, but it's a bit tricky.

Using empty parent class just to group other classes. Is there a better approach?

I have several classes that conceptually belong to one tier. They have no common properties which is why they have no need to inherit from some base class.
I also have a few methods that deal with these classes. Some of them are templates of the following style:
public SomeClass
{
public void SomeMethod<T> (T argument) where T : BaseClass
{
/* Do something */
}
}
So I'm using this WHERE keyword just to secure the code (from myself I suppose), so that I don't by mistake feed to this method something else.
Naturally I made those other classes derive from BaseClass which is empty and has no other purpose (at least for now) than to group other classes.
This is probably not that good approach but anyway I'm using it.
Is there a better way to do this?
EDIT: After consideration I decided not to go with that approach and just removed that base class. Good enough without it. I cannot make the code absolutely perfect anyway, and the less unneeded thing there are the better.

Use a marker (empty) interface instead of a base class:
public void SomeMethod<T> (T argument) where T : ISomeInterface

+1 on Jeff's answer. Tagging ("marker") interfaces are common in both C# and Java frameworks. They let you assign a common type to "class A" so that another class ("class B") can be ignorant of class A's concrete type.
As with anything this flexible, it's easy to misuse, but in your case it definitely fills the bill.

Perhaps a more concrete example would provide a little more perspective. As it stands, I'd say you should not group classes in this way.
Your SomeMethod() method obviously does not reference any of the properties of the argument (or if it does, it also must be casting the argument to different type(s)); What is the reason for securing the code "from yourself"? What would happen if you were to call the method passing in an object that was not approved?
If the argument constraint is absolutely necessary, I would recommend as Grybyx did, use an Interface. That'll save you from issues with multiple inheritance.