4 ms·

Huh! are people still stuck on this? Yet another post that justifies this comment[1] James Shore made about 7 years back: "Dependency Injection is a 25-dollar

by lazydon 13y ago

Huh! are people still stuck on this? Yet another post that justifies this comment[1] James Shore made about 7 years back: "Dependency Injection is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept" [1]: http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Dependency-Injection-Demystified.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Dependency-Injection-Demystif...

aidenn0 13y ago
I just skimmed the original article and found it relatively opaque, but it specifically states that it is talking about something distinct from dependency injection.
- epistasis 13y ago
  I agree about the distinctness and the opaqueness of the article, but I find that the Fowler's dependency injection article is relevant because dependency inversion is similarly a $25 word for a $0.05 concept, and similarly described pedantically, opaquely, and poorly. Articles like the dependency injection one are why I shy away from the Java community; pedantry about simple concepts that should be obvious good design indicate to me that the point really needs to be pounded home in the community due to widespread bad design. It can be nice to have terms to refer to different practices, but it just seems too much to me. That said, I know lots of good developers who use Java a lot, and I guess it's a good way to get a lot of mediocre programmers to make maintainable code.
  - specialist 13y ago
    why I shy away from the Java community; pedantry about simple concepts Agree. Please note the cultural context. Java, XML, design patterns, and enterprise (CORBA, MQ) all hit about the same time. So there was a temporal grouping for all those things. I started a design patterns study group about 15+ years ago. (It continues to this day. We've covered many other topics over the years, including SICP, concurrency, HTML5, computational intelligence, etc.) There was no bigger fan of "design patterns" than me. Now, I think learning "design patterns" are a phase of a developer's maturity. Kind of like only a master jazz musician knows how to break the rules of jazz. Unfortunately, it's hard to expunge (deprecate) bad ideas. For many, it's simply easier to get a fresh start by adopting a new language, tool stack, community. Java is a pretty good language. What it needs is a do-over. What would Java look like today, following the original principles of the Oak Team?
    - RyanZAG 13y ago
      Disagree. Have a look at more modern Java; for example Acteur[1]. Guice and a focus on annotations have dramatically reduced the annoying boilerplate that used to surround EJB. Spring appears to be on the way out, which I think everyone can be thankful for - although the latest versions of Spring are starting to become quite good now, so maybe it will survive. Plus with the way Android is going, if you want to write something that actually runs on the devices you own, you'll want to know Java. ;) [1] https://github.com/timboudreau/acteur-tutorial https://github.com/timboudreau/acteur-tutorial
      - specialist 13y ago
        Quote from a buddy of mine: "Dependency Injection is great. For the 6 to 8 classes you need to wire up! In which case, why would you need a framework?"

by lazydon 13y ago

aidenn0 13y ago

I just skimmed the original article and found it relatively opaque, but it specifically states that it is talking about something distinct from dependency injection.

epistasis 13y ago
I agree about the distinctness and the opaqueness of the article, but I find that the Fowler's dependency injection article is relevant because dependency inversion is similarly a $25 word for a $0.05 concept, and similarly described pedantically, opaquely, and poorly. Articles like the dependency injection one are why I shy away from the Java community; pedantry about simple concepts that should be obvious good design indicate to me that the point really needs to be pounded home in the community due to widespread bad design. It can be nice to have terms to refer to different practices, but it just seems too much to me. That said, I know lots of good developers who use Java a lot, and I guess it's a good way to get a lot of mediocre programmers to make maintainable code.
- specialist 13y ago
  why I shy away from the Java community; pedantry about simple concepts Agree. Please note the cultural context. Java, XML, design patterns, and enterprise (CORBA, MQ) all hit about the same time. So there was a temporal grouping for all those things. I started a design patterns study group about 15+ years ago. (It continues to this day. We've covered many other topics over the years, including SICP, concurrency, HTML5, computational intelligence, etc.) There was no bigger fan of "design patterns" than me. Now, I think learning "design patterns" are a phase of a developer's maturity. Kind of like only a master jazz musician knows how to break the rules of jazz. Unfortunately, it's hard to expunge (deprecate) bad ideas. For many, it's simply easier to get a fresh start by adopting a new language, tool stack, community. Java is a pretty good language. What it needs is a do-over. What would Java look like today, following the original principles of the Oak Team?
  - RyanZAG 13y ago
    Disagree. Have a look at more modern Java; for example Acteur[1]. Guice and a focus on annotations have dramatically reduced the annoying boilerplate that used to surround EJB. Spring appears to be on the way out, which I think everyone can be thankful for - although the latest versions of Spring are starting to become quite good now, so maybe it will survive. Plus with the way Android is going, if you want to write something that actually runs on the devices you own, you'll want to know Java. ;) [1] https://github.com/timboudreau/acteur-tutorial https://github.com/timboudreau/acteur-tutorial
    - specialist 13y ago
      Quote from a buddy of mine: "Dependency Injection is great. For the 6 to 8 classes you need to wire up! In which case, why would you need a framework?"