Dependency Injection Breaks Encapsulation

[TomB]

@tony_marston404

I do not use an autoloader for the simple reason that I do not have the problem for which an autoloader is the solution. Besides, an autoloader cannot do anything that cannot already be done using include_path.

Well clearly you do! You used the fact that require_once lines are needed for classes as an example of DI needing more lines of code. Those repeated require_once lines are a perfect example of where an autoloader can solve the issues you had. Besides, I already answered this in detail with an example, using your own codebase that solves the problem.

@tony_marston404

I disagree. It is not up to me to identify when DI is inferior, it is up to you to identify when DI is superior, something you have repeatedly failed to do. I will not use DI unless I have a good reason to do so, and I’m afraid “because I said so!” is not a good enough reason.

… I have repeatedly demonstrated this. DI is:

• Fewer lines of code
• Faster to execute due to less code
• Quicker to write
• Infinitely more flexible

You’re the one making the claim that “DI IS EVIL (sometimes)” It’s is 100% up to you to back up that claim.

You must be trolling at this point.

I will repost this, because it’s a nuance you seem unable to grasp:

@TomB

The problem is, you’re still discussing the efficacy of DI without taking into account the efficacy of the alternative. It’s a zero-sum game. Whether or not DI provides any specific benefit is offset by any negative traits of alternative approaches. If DI is neutral, as in no benefit and no negative, then the alternative has to give a positive benefit in order to be “better”. All of the situations you have shown fail to do this. Even in your case where DI provides “no benefit”. The drawbacks of alternative approaches provide a negative benefit. Even in situations where DI doesn’t directly add a benefit it’s still preferable any of the other approaches you have listed.