Abstract Classes VS Interfaces

Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)

While your question indicates it's for "general OO", it really seems to be focusing on .NET use of these terms.

In .NET (similar for Java):

• interfaces can have no state or implementation
• a class that implements an interface must provide an implementation of all the methods of that interface
• abstract classes may contain state (data members) and/or implementation (methods)
• abstract classes can be inherited without implementing the abstract methods (though such a derived class is abstract itself)
• interfaces may be multiple-inherited, abstract classes may not (this is probably the key concrete reason for interfaces to exist separately from abtract classes - they permit an implementation of multiple inheritance that removes many of the problems of general MI).

As general OO terms, the differences are not necessarily well-defined. For example, there are C++ programmers who may hold similar rigid definitions (interfaces are a strict subset of abstract classes that cannot contain implementation), while some may say that an abstract class with some default implementations is still an interface or that a non-abstract class can still define an interface.

Indeed, there is a C++ idiom called the Non-Virtual Interface (NVI) where the public methods are non-virtual methods that 'thunk' to private virtual methods:

• http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm
• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Non-Virtual_Interface

Abstract Class vs Interface in C++

I assume that with interface you mean a C++ class with only pure virtual methods (i.e. without any code), instead with abstract class you mean a C++ class with virtual methods that can be overridden, and some code, but at least one pure virtual method that makes the class not instantiable.
e.g.:

class MyInterface
{
public:
  // Empty virtual destructor for proper cleanup
  virtual ~MyInterface() {}

  virtual void Method1() = 0;
  virtual void Method2() = 0;
};

class MyAbstractClass
{
public:
  virtual ~MyAbstractClass();

  virtual void Method1();
  virtual void Method2();
  void Method3();

  virtual void Method4() = 0; // make MyAbstractClass not instantiable
};

In Windows programming, interfaces are fundamental in COM. In fact, a COM component exports only interfaces (i.e. pointers to v-tables, i.e. pointers to set of function pointers). This helps defining an ABI (Application Binary Interface) that makes it possible to e.g. build a COM component in C++ and use it in Visual Basic, or build a COM component in C and use it in C++, or build a COM component with Visual C++ version X and use it with Visual C++ version Y.
In other words, with interfaces you have high decoupling between client code and server code.

Moreover, when you want to build DLL's with a C++ object-oriented interface (instead of pure C DLL's), as described in this article, it's better to export interfaces (the "mature approach") instead of C++ classes (this is basically what COM does, but without the burden of COM infrastructure).

I'd use an interface if I want to define a set of rules using which a component can be programmed, without specifying a concrete particular behavior. Classes that implement this interface will provide some concrete behavior themselves.

Instead, I'd use an abstract class when I want to provide some default infrastructure code and behavior, and make it possible to client code to derive from this abstract class, overriding the pure virtual methods with some custom code, and complete this behavior with custom code.
Think for example of an infrastructure for an OpenGL application.
You can define an abstract class that initializes OpenGL, sets up the window environment, etc. and then you can derive from this class and implement custom code for e.g. the rendering process and handling user input:

// Abstract class for an OpenGL app.
// Creates rendering window, initializes OpenGL; 
// client code must derive from it 
// and implement rendering and user input.
class OpenGLApp
{
public:
  OpenGLApp();
  virtual ~OpenGLApp();
  ...

  // Run the app    
  void Run();

  // <---- This behavior must be implemented by the client ---->

  // Rendering
  virtual void Render() = 0;

  // Handle user input
  // (returns false to quit, true to continue looping)
  virtual bool HandleInput() = 0;

  // <--------------------------------------------------------->

private:
  //
  // Some infrastructure code
  //
  ... 
  void CreateRenderingWindow();
  void CreateOpenGLContext();
  void SwapBuffers();
};

class MyOpenGLDemo : public OpenGLApp
{
public:
  MyOpenGLDemo();
  virtual ~MyOpenGLDemo();

  // Rendering
  virtual void Render();  // implements rendering code

  // Handle user input
  virtual bool HandleInput(); // implements user input handling

  //  ... some other stuff
};

What's the difference between an abstract class and an interface?

There are technical differences between Abstract Classes and Interfaces, that being an Abstract Class can contain implementation of methods, fields, constructors, etc, while an Interface only contains method and property prototypes. A class can implement multiple interfaces, but it can only inherit one class (abstract or otherwise).

However, in my opinion, the most important difference between Interfaces and Abstract Classes is the semantic difference.

An Interface defines what something can do (how it behaves), and an Abstract Class defines what something is.

Take for example IEnumerable, the semantic meaning behind this is that anything that implements IEnumerable is enumerable, it doesn't mean that it's an enumeration, but that it can behave like one (can be enumerated).

Contrast that with a washing machine example, anything that inherits it is a type of washing machine. Anything that inherits it would be a type of washing machine, a top loader, or side loader, etc.

Instead, if you had an interface called ICanWash, which could contain a method called Wash. You could have various things implement ICanWash, be it a Person, an abstract washing machine class, etc, where the actual implementation does not matter, just you need to know that the behavior is that it can wash things.

In summary, classes define what something is, interfaces define what something can do.

What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?

Interfaces

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

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

For example (pseudo code):

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

    int getFuel();
}

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

    int fuel;

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

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

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

---

Abstract classes

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

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

For example:

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

    int fuel;

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

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

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

---

Implementation

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

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

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

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

When to use an interface instead of an abstract class and vice versa?

I wrote an article about that:

Abstract classes and interfaces

Summarizing:

When we talk about abstract classes we are defining characteristics of an object type; specifying what an object is.

When we talk about an interface and define capabilities that we promise to provide, we are talking about establishing a contract about what the object can do.

When to use interface vs abstract class after Java 8

default methods on interface

Apparently you are referring to the feature of “default methods” implementing behavior in an interface.

You should understand that the feature was added as a way around this dilemma: How to retroactively add features leveraging streams and lambda on existing interfaces without breaking existing classes that implement those interfaces?

Many new methods were added to those interfaces such as in the Java Collections Framework. Adding methods to an existing interface would automatically break all classes implementing the interface that are lacking the newly-required methods. Being able to provide a fallback, to give an implementation where one is now required but not yet existing, would resolve the dilemma. Thus « default methods » were born.

To quote from the Oracle tutorial linked above:

Default methods enable you to add new functionality to the interfaces of your libraries and ensure binary compatibility with code written for older versions of those interfaces.

To quote this Answer by Brian Goetz, Java Language Architect at Oracle:

The proximate reason for adding default methods to interfaces was to support interface evolution

So this feature of adding default behavior to an interface was not meant to be a new mainstream feature in and of itself. The intent of default was not to replace abstract.

Indeed, some experienced Java experts have recommended against making a habit of writing default methods on an interface. They recommend pretty much ignoring that feature of the Java language. Continue to think of interfaces as simply defining a contract, and abstract classes as providing partial implementations meant to be completed in a subclass.

You are certainly free to write your own default methods on your interfaces. And certainly you should do so if you are in a similar situation of having published an interface that others may have implemented, and now you want to add methods. But unnecessarily adding default methods is likely to confuse other programmers who expect partial implementations on an abstract class rather than an interface.

Four situations calling for default method on an interface

In that same post linked above, Brian Goetz suggests three other cases beyond interface evolution where default methods on an interface may be appropriate. Here is a quick mention; see his post for details.

• Optional methods - The default method throws an UnsupportedOperationException because we expect implementations of this interface to more often not want to implement this method.
• Convenience methods
• Combinators

Start with interface, move to abstract class for shared code

As for choosing between an interface and abstract class:

• Generally start with an interface. Or several interfaces if you want various implementing classes to mix various contracts (see mixin).
  
  • Think twice before adding a default method. Consider if your situation meets one of the four cases recommended by Brian Goetz as discussed above.
• If you come to realize that you have duplicated code across multiple classes, then consider centralizing that shared code to an abstract class to be used across subclasses.
  
  • Alternatively, use composition rather than inheritance (discussed below).

For example, you might have a class for domestic ShippingLabelUS as well as ShippingLabelCanada and ShippingLabelOverseas. All three need to convert between imperial pounds and metric kilograms. You find yourself copying that code between the classes. At this point you might consider having all three classes extend from abstract class ShippingLabel where a single copy of the weight conversion methods live.

While designing your API keep in mind that Java, like most OOP languages, has single-inheritance. So your subclasses are limited to extending only one class. To be a bit more specific about the single-versus-multiple inheritance, I will quote Brian Goetz from this PDF of a slide deck:

[regarding default methods on an interface]

Wait,is this multiple inheritance in Java?

• Java always had multiple inheritance of types

• This adds multiple inheritance of behavior

• But not of state, where most of the trouble comes from

Composition over inheritance

An alternative to using an abstract class for shared behavior is creating a separate class for specific behavior, then adding an object of that separate class to be kept as a member field on the larger class. Wise programmers often share this pearl of wisdom: Prefer composition over inheritance.

Regarding the shipping label example above, you could create a WeightConverter class, an object of which would be a member of each of the three label classes. In this arrangement, no need for the abstract class.

---

Related Topics