oop c# java - What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?





15 Answers

The key technical differences between an abstract class and an interface are:

  • Abstract classes can have constants, members, method stubs (methods without a body) and defined methods, whereas interfaces can only have constants and methods stubs.

  • Methods and members of an abstract class can be defined with any visibility, whereas all methods of an interface must be defined as public (they are defined public by default).

  • When inheriting an abstract class, a concrete child class must define the abstract methods, whereas an abstract class can extend another abstract class and abstract methods from the parent class don't have to be defined.

  • Similarly, an interface extending another interface is not responsible for implementing methods from the parent interface. This is because interfaces cannot define any implementation.

  • A child class can only extend a single class (abstract or concrete), whereas an interface can extend or a class can implement multiple other interfaces.

  • A child class can define abstract methods with the same or less restrictive visibility, whereas a class implementing an interface must define the methods with the exact same visibility (public).

with real time

What exactly is the difference between an interface and abstract class?




An explanation can be found here: http://www.developer.com/lang/php/article.php/3604111/PHP-5-OOP-Interfaces-Abstract-Classes-and-the-Adapter-Pattern.htm

An abstract class is a class that is only partially implemented by the programmer. It may contain one or more abstract methods. An abstract method is simply a function definition that serves to tell the programmer that the method must be implemented in a child class.

An interface is similar to an abstract class; indeed interfaces occupy the same namespace as classes and abstract classes. For that reason, you cannot define an interface with the same name as a class. An interface is a fully abstract class; none of its methods are implemented and instead of a class sub-classing from it, it is said to implement that interface.

Anyway I find this explanation of interfaces somewhat confusing. A more common definition is: An interface defines a contract that implementing classes must fulfill. An interface definition consists of signatures of public members, without any implementing code.




I don't want to highlight the differences, which have been already said in many answers ( regarding public static final modifiers for variables in interface & support for protected, private methods in abstract classes)

In simple terms, I would like to say:

interface: To implement a contract by multiple unrelated objects

abstract class: To implement the same or different behaviour among multiple related objects

From the Oracle documentation

Consider using abstract classes if :

  1. You want to share code among several closely related classes.
  2. You expect that classes that extend your abstract class have many common methods or fields, or require access modifiers other than public (such as protected and private).
  3. You want to declare non-static or non-final fields.

Consider using interfaces if :

  1. You expect that unrelated classes would implement your interface. For example,many unrelated objects can implement Serializable interface.
  2. You want to specify the behaviour of a particular data type, but not concerned about who implements its behaviour.
  3. You want to take advantage of multiple inheritance of type.

abstract class establishes "is a" relation with concrete classes. interface provides "has a" capability for classes.

If you are looking for Java as programming language, here are a few more updates:

Java 8 has reduced the gap between interface and abstract classes to some extent by providing a default method feature. An interface does not have an implementation for a method is no longer valid now.

Refer to this documentation page for more details.

Have a look at this SE question for code examples to understand better.

How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?




When you want to provide polymorphic behaviour in an inheritance hierarchy, use abstract classes.

When you want polymorphic behaviour for classes which are completely unrelated, use an interface.




Let's work on this question again:

The first thing to let you know is that 1/1 and 1*1 results in the same, but it does not mean that multiplication and division are same. Obviously, they hold some good relationship, but mind you both are different.

I will point out main differences, and the rest have already been explained:

Abstract classes are useful for modeling a class hierarchy. At first glance of any requirement, we are partially clear on what exactly is to be built, but we know what to build. And so your abstract classes are your base classes.

Interfaces are useful for letting other hierarchy or classes to know that what I am capable of doing. And when you say I am capable of something, you must have that capacity. Interfaces will mark it as compulsory for a class to implement the same functionalities.




The comparison of interface vs. abstract class is wrong. There should be two other comparisons instead: 1) interface vs. class and 2) abstract vs. final class.

Interface vs Class

Interface is a contract between two objects. E.g., I'm a Postman and you're a Package to deliver. I expect you to know your delivery address. When someone gives me a Package, it has to know its delivery address:

interface Package {
  String address();
}

Class is a group of objects that obey the contract. E.g., I'm a box from "Box" group and I obey the contract required by the Postman. At the same time I obey other contracts:

class Box implements Package, Property {
  @Override
  String address() {
    return "5th Street, New York, NY";
  }
  @Override
  Human owner() {
    // this method is part of another contract
  }
}

Abstract vs Final

Abstract class is a group of incomplete objects. They can't be used, because they miss some parts. E.g., I'm an abstract GPS-aware box - I know how to check my position on the map:

abstract class GpsBox implements Package {
  @Override
  public abstract String address();
  protected Coordinates whereAmI() {
    // connect to GPS and return my current position
  }
}

This class, if inherited/extended by another class, can be very useful. But by itself - it is useless, since it can't have objects. Abstract classes can be building elements of final classes.

Final class is a group of complete objects, which can be used, but can't be modified. They know exactly how to work and what to do. E.g., I'm a Box that always goes to the address specified during its construction:

final class DirectBox implements Package {
  private final String to;
  public DirectBox(String addr) {
    this.to = addr;
  }
  @Override
  public String address() {
    return this.to;
  }
}

In most languages, like Java or C++, it is possible to have just a class, neither abstract nor final. Such a class can be inherited and can be instantiated. I don't think this is strictly in line with object-oriented paradigm, though.

Again, comparing interfaces with abstract classes is not correct.




In short the differences are the following:

Syntactical Differences Between Interface and Abstract Class:

  1. Methods and members of an abstract class can have any visibility. All methods of an interface must be public. //Does not hold true from Java 9 anymore
  2. A concrete child class of an Abstract Class must define all the abstract methods. An Abstract child class can have abstract methods. An interface extending another interface need not provide default implementation for methods inherited from the parent interface.
  3. A child class can only extend a single class. An interface can extend multiple interfaces. A class can implement multiple interfaces.
  4. A child class can define abstract methods with the same or less restrictive visibility, whereas class implementing an interface must define all interface methods as public.
  5. Abstract Classes can have constructors but not interfaces.
  6. Interfaces from Java 9 have private static methods.

In Interfaces now:

public static - supported
public abstract - supported
public default - supported
private static - supported
private abstract - compile error
private default - compile error
private - supported




Not really the answer to the original question, but once you have the answer to the difference between them, you will enter the when-to-use-each dilemma: When to use interfaces or abstract classes? When to use both?

I've limited knowledge of OOP, but seeing interfaces as an equivalent of an adjective in grammar has worked for me until now (correct me if this method is bogus!). For example, interface names are like attributes or capabilities you can give to a class, and a class can have many of them: ISerializable, ICountable, IList, ICacheable, IHappy, ...




Inheritance is used for two purposes:

  • To allow an object to regard parent-type data members and method implementations as its own.

  • To allow a reference to an objects of one type to be used by code which expects a reference to supertype object.

In languages/frameworks which support generalized multiple inheritance, there is often little need to classify a type as either being an "interface" or an "abstract class". Popular languages and frameworks, however, will allow a type to regard one other type's data members or method implementations as its own even though they allow a type to be substitutable for an arbitrary number of other types.

Abstract classes may have data members and method implementations, but can only be inherited by classes which don't inherit from any other classes. Interfaces put almost no restrictions on the types which implement them, but cannot include any data members or method implementations.

There are times when it's useful for types to be substitutable for many different things; there are other times when it's useful for objects to regard parent-type data members and method implementations as their own. Making a distinction between interfaces and abstract classes allows each of those abilities to be used in cases where it is most relevant.




The shortest way to sum it up is that an interface is:

  1. Fully abstract, apart from default and static methods; while it has definitions (method signatures + implementations) for default and static methods, it only has declarations (method signatures) for other methods.
  2. Subject to laxer rules than classes (a class can implement multiple interfaces, and an interface can inherit from multiple interfaces). All variables are implicitly constant, whether specified as public static final or not. All members are implicitly public, whether specified as such or not.
  3. Generally used as a guarantee that the implementing class will have the specified features and/or be compatible with any other class which implements the same interface.

Meanwhile, an abstract class is:

  1. Anywhere from fully abstract to fully implemented, with a tendency to have one or more abstract methods. Can contain both declarations and definitions, with declarations marked as abstract.
  2. A full-fledged class, and subject to the rules that govern other classes (can only inherit from one class), on the condition that it cannot be instantiated (because there's no guarantee that it's fully implemented). Can have non-constant member variables. Can implement member access control, restricting members as protected, private, or private package (unspecified).
  3. Generally used either to provide as much of the implementation as can be shared by multiple subclasses, or to provide as much of the implementation as the programmer is able to supply.

Or, if we want to boil it all down to a single sentence: An interface is what the implementing class has, but an abstract class is what the subclass is.




By definition, interfaces cannot have an implementation for any methods, and member variables cannot be initialized.

However, abstract classes can have methods implementated and member variables initialized.

Use abstract classes when you expect changes in your contract, i.e., say in future you might need to add a new method.

In this situation, if you decide to use an interface, when the interface is changed to include interface, your application will break when you dumped the new interface dll.

To read in detail, visit difference between abstract class and a interface




Differences between abstract class and interface on behalf of real implementation.

Interface: It is a keyword and it is used to define the template or blue print of an object and it forces all the sub classes would follow the same prototype,as for as implementation, all the sub classes are free to implement the functionality as per it's requirement.

Some of other use cases where we should use interface.

Communication between two external objects(Third party integration in our application) done through Interface here Interface works as Contract.

Abstract Class: Abstract,it is a keyword and when we use this keyword before any class then it becomes abstract class.It is mainly used when we need to define the template as well as some default functionality of an object that is followed by all the sub classes and this way it removes the redundant code and one more use cases where we can use abstract class, such as we want no other classes can directly instantiate an object of the class, only derived classes can use the functionality.

Example of Abstract Class:

 public abstract class DesireCar
  {

 //It is an abstract method that defines the prototype.
     public abstract void Color();

  // It is a default implementation of a Wheel method as all the desire cars have the same no. of wheels.   
 // and hence no need to define this in all the sub classes in this way it saves the code duplicasy     

  public void Wheel() {          

               Console.WriteLine("Car has four wheel");
                }
           }


    **Here is the sub classes:**

     public class DesireCar1 : DesireCar
        {
            public override void Color()
            {
                Console.WriteLine("This is a red color Desire car");
            }
        }

        public class DesireCar2 : DesireCar
        {
            public override void Color()
            {
                Console.WriteLine("This is a red white Desire car");
            }
        }

Example Of Interface:

  public interface IShape
        {
          // Defines the prototype(template) 
            void Draw();
        }


  // All the sub classes follow the same template but implementation can be different.

    public class Circle : IShape
    {
        public void Draw()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("This is a Circle");
        }
    }

    public class Rectangle : IShape
    {
        public void Draw()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("This is a Rectangle");
        }
    }



Here is a very basic understanding over interface vs abstract class.




To give a simple but clear answer, it helps to set the context : you use both when you do not want to provide full implementations.

The main difference then is an interface has no implementation at all (only methods without a body) while abstract classes can have members and methods with a body as well, i.e. can be partially implemented.




I read a simple yet effective explanation of Abstract class and Interface on php.net

Which is as follows.

An Interface is like a protocol. It doesn't designate the behavior of the object; it designates how your code tells that object to act. An interface would be like the English Language: defining an interface defines how your code communicates with any object implementing that interface.

An interface is always an agreement or a promise. When a class says "I implement interface Y", it is saying "I promise to have the same public methods that any object with interface Y has".

On the other hand, an Abstract Class is like a partially built class. It is much like a document with blanks to fill in. It might be using English, but that isn't as important as the fact that some of the document is already written.

An abstract class is the foundation for another object. When a class says "I extend abstract class Y", it is saying "I use some methods or properties already defined in this other class named Y".

So, consider the following PHP:

<?php
class X implements Y { } // this is saying that "X" agrees to speak language "Y" with your code.

class X extends Y { } // this is saying that "X" is going to complete the partial class "Y".
?>

You would have your class implement a particular interface if you were distributing a class to be used by other people. The interface is an agreement to have a specific set of public methods for your class.

You would have your class extend an abstract class if you (or someone else) wrote a class that already had some methods written that you want to use in your new class.

These concepts, while easy to confuse, are specifically different and distinct. For all intents and purposes, if you're the only user of any of your classes, you don't need to implement interfaces.




Related