4 ms·

1. This was not written by Joel himself. This was written by a guy named Benji Smith on JoS forum. 2. I understand dependency injection completely but question

1. This was not written by Joel himself. This was written by a guy named Benji Smith on JoS forum. 2. I understand dependency injection completely but question if it's really required to write quality software OR is it a technique you use because programming languages are lacking. Let me give you an example. In .NET world, there is a product called, Isolator by a company called TypeMock. It can let you mock any type/method by exploiting CLR. In .NET, there is a type called System.DateTime with a static property DateTime.Now. I have seen code where people try to write interfaces to inject DateTime.Now. And I think it's an overkill. When I saw their example of how they can mock DateTime.Now without doing DI, I am personally convinced that DI is about addressing limitations of your statically typed language and is not an absolute must. http://www.typemock.com/TypemockIsolatorExamples http://www.typemock.com/TypemockIsolatorExamples

robotkilla 12y ago
> if it's really required to write quality software of course it isn't. if your program doesn't require dependency injection and you architect it for dependency injection, that isn't quality software.
- solutionyogi 12y ago
  Here's the current status of .NET software development. I think there is a broad agreement that unit testing is a very useful tool in developing quality software. Because of the inherent limitation of C#, you can't unit test easily if you don't use DI. This often leads to a situation where you have tons of interfaces + each interface is implemented exactly by one class. This is because product like Isolator is not free. Hyptothetically, if Isolator was provided by Microsoft for free, I am sure that we will see reduced usage of DI. Don't get me wrong, I think there are other scenarios where DI is a great technique in designing components which are flexible. However, those scenarios are not that many. Using DI to make your software unit testable is an overkill IMHO.
zby 12y ago
Mocking is global - when you need two objects that need to have two different DateTime.Now - then you are out of lack if you mock it. DI is just a bit more universal than mocking. On they other hand mocking is simpler - agreed. Thanks for correcting me about who was the author.

robotkilla 12y ago

> if it's really required to write quality software of course it isn't. if your program doesn't require dependency injection and you architect it for dependency injection, that isn't quality software.

solutionyogi 12y ago
Here's the current status of .NET software development. I think there is a broad agreement that unit testing is a very useful tool in developing quality software. Because of the inherent limitation of C#, you can't unit test easily if you don't use DI. This often leads to a situation where you have tons of interfaces + each interface is implemented exactly by one class. This is because product like Isolator is not free. Hyptothetically, if Isolator was provided by Microsoft for free, I am sure that we will see reduced usage of DI. Don't get me wrong, I think there are other scenarios where DI is a great technique in designing components which are flexible. However, those scenarios are not that many. Using DI to make your software unit testable is an overkill IMHO.

zby 12y ago

Mocking is global - when you need two objects that need to have two different DateTime.Now - then you are out of lack if you mock it. DI is just a bit more universal than mocking. On they other hand mocking is simpler - agreed. Thanks for correcting me about who was the author.