Yupe. Different ways to get to the same end result of decoupling components 🙂
I like the C# approach, probably because I'm used to it, but I can understand that coming from other languages it seems overly complex.
Being able to just declare the dependencies in the constructor and they'll be there when running is nice (even if a bit magic) and gives quick visibility on the dependencies of a given class just by looking at the constructor. It does come with the hidden complexity you talked about, so as always, there are trade offs.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
In Ruby code is like this. Don't need a DI container.
Yupe. Different ways to get to the same end result of decoupling components 🙂
I like the C# approach, probably because I'm used to it, but I can understand that coming from other languages it seems overly complex.
Being able to just declare the dependencies in the constructor and they'll be there when running is nice (even if a bit magic) and gives quick visibility on the dependencies of a given class just by looking at the constructor. It does come with the hidden complexity you talked about, so as always, there are trade offs.