4 ms·

Ease of comprehension is more important than tests for preventing bugs. A highly testable DI nightmare will have more bugs than a simple system that people can

• mrsmrtss 1y ago
  I haven't experienced a DI 'nightmare' myself yet, but then again, we have integration tests to cover for that.
  • CharlieDigital 1y ago
    Try Nest.js and you'll know true DI "nightmares".
• thatnerdyguy 1y ago
  If the argument is that most developers can't understand what a DI system does, I don't know if I buy that. Or is the argument it's hard to track down dependencies? Because if that's the case the idiomatic c# has the dependencies declared right in the ctor.
• LinXitoW 1y ago
  But the "simple" system will be full of repetition and boilerplate, meaning the same bugs are scattered around the code base, and obscured by masses of boilerplate. Isn't a GC also a Magic? Or anything above assembly? While I also understand the reluctance to use too much magic, in my experience, it's not the magic, it's how well the magic is tested and developed. I used to work with Play framework, a web framework built around Akka, an async bundle of libraries. Because it wasn't too popular, only the most common issues were well documented. I thought I hated magic. Then, I started using Spring Boot, and I loved magic. Spring has so much documentation that you can also become the magician, if you need to.