7 ms·
> direct DI—as in, passing dependencies to things Mark Seemann called it "poor man's DI" in the first edition of Dependency Injection in .NET and changed it to
by ptx 5y ago
> direct DI—as in, passing dependencies to things
Mark Seemann called it "poor man's DI" in the first edition of Dependency Injection in .NET and changed it to "pure DI" in the second edition, but "direct DI" might be a better term.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoThinking on it further I want to give credit to one of the two major influences on my preference: 1. This one: “explicit is better than implicit” as a principle 2. Not this one: functional programming “Pure DI” presumably insinuates the latter, but can get rather muddy (is dynamic scope “pure?” lololol) and I think calling it “explicit DI” might be more accessible and easier to understand.