title: When are interfaces needed?
body: <p>(In the context of .NET for what its worth)</p>
  
  <p>I tend to not use inheritance and rarely use interfaces.  I came across someone who thinks interfaces are the best thing since spit.  He uses them everywhere.  I don't understand this and hence the questions that follow.  I just want a check on my understanding of interfaces.</p>
  
  <p>If you are using interfaces everywhere, I'm assuming you can predict the future, your app requirements are nailed down and nothing will ever change in your app.  For me, during early development especially, interfaces become a drag.  The app is very dynamic through its life.  If you need to subtract or add members to the interface, lots of stuff will break.  The guy above says he creates another interface to handle the new member(s).  Nothing breaks.</p>
  
  <p>Isn't that composition?  Why not use composition without interfaces?  More flexible.</p>
  
  <p>How does he handle the case where a member must be subtracted from the interface?  Basically he doesn't.  Things just break and that is great because now you can see all of the affected areas and fix them.  Instead of figuring out more elegantly where all of the related code paths are, we should just rip out parts of classes through brute force? </p>
  
  <p>I think of a software application as a graph.  A complete graph is the worst case, having n(n-1)/2.  This means every class talks to every class.  A confusing spider web.  n-1 is the best, in which their is a strict hierarchy of communication.  Adding another interface just to compensate for a new needed member adds a vertici to the graph, which means more edges and a stronger realization of the n(n-1)/2 equation.  Composition without interfaces is more like mixins.  Only select classes use particular methods.  With an interface, all classes are forced to use members, even if they don't need them.  The composition/mixin approach doesn't add new unneeded edges.</p>