Haven't used Python in several years, but I would say that it has more to do with it being a dynamically typed language than anything else. For a simple example, in Java, if I wanted to test that something wrote to standard out appropriately I could use DI and pass in any PrintStream to capture the text being written and verify it. When I'm working in Ruby, however, I can dynamically replace the 'puts' method on STDOUT to do the verify, leaving DI completely out of the picture. If the only reason I'm creating an abstraction is to test the class that's using it (think File system operations or the clock in Java) then DI/IoC creates unnecessary complexity in the solution.

我支持“Jörg W Mittag”的回答:“DI/IoC的Python实现是如此的轻量级，以至于它完全消失了”。

为了支持这一说法，看看Martin Fowler从Java移植到Python的著名示例:Python:Design_Patterns:Inversion_of_Control

从上面的链接中可以看到，Python中的“Container”可以用8行代码编写:

class Container:
    def __init__(self, system_data):
        for component_name, component_class, component_args in system_data:
            if type(component_class) == types.ClassType:
                args = [self.__dict__[arg] for arg in component_args]
                self.__dict__[component_name] = component_class(*args)
            else:
                self.__dict__[component_name] = component_class

你可以手动使用Python进行依赖注入，但手动方法有其缺点:

大量的样板代码来进行连接。你可以使用Python的动态特性来进行注入，但这样你就失去了IDE的支持(例如，PyCharm中的Ctrl+Space)，并且你会使代码更难理解和调试 没有标准:每个程序员都有自己解决相同问题的方法，这导致了重新发明轮子，理解彼此的代码很快就会成为一种痛苦。依赖注入库为插件提供了简单的框架

要做到这一切，我们需要一个依赖注入框架，例如这个https://python-dependency-injector.ets-labs.org/index.html似乎是Python最成熟的依赖注入框架。

对于较小的应用程序，DI容器是不必要的，对于任何有几百行代码或更多的东西，DI容器是必须的，以保持你的代码可维护性。

部分原因是模块系统在Python中的工作方式。你可以免费获得一种“单例”，只需从模块中导入它。在模块中定义一个对象的实际实例，然后任何客户端代码都可以导入它，并实际获得一个工作的、完全构造/填充的对象。

这与Java相反，在Java中不导入对象的实际实例。这意味着你总是必须自己实例化它们(或使用某种IoC/DI风格的方法)。您可以通过使用静态工厂方法(或实际的工厂类)来减轻必须自己实例化所有东西的麻烦，但这样您仍然会产生每次实际创建新方法的资源开销。

似乎人们真的不明白依赖注入和控制反转意味着什么了。

使用控制反转的实践是让类或函数依赖于其他类或函数，但是与其在类或函数代码中创建实例，不如将它们作为参数接收，这样就可以实现松耦合。这有很多好处，如更多的可测试性和实现利斯科夫替换原理。

You see, by working with interfaces and injections, your code gets more maintainable, since you can change the behavior easily, because you won't have to rewrite a single line of code (maybe a line or two on the DI configuration) of your class to change its behavior, since the classes that implement the interface your class is waiting for can vary independently as long as they follow the interface. One of the best strategies to keep code decoupled and easy to maintain is to follow at least the single responsibility, substitution and dependency inversion principles.

What's a DI library good for if you can instantiate an object yourself inside a package and import it to inject it yourself? The chosen answer is right, since java has no procedural sections (code outside of classes), all that goes into boring configuration xml's, hence the need of a class to instantiate and inject dependencies on a lazy load fashion so you don't blow away your performance, while on python you just code the injections in the "procedural" (code outside classes) sections of your code.

我同意@Jorg的观点，在Python中DI/IoC是可能的，更简单，甚至更漂亮。缺少的是支持它的框架，但也有一些例外。举几个我想到的例子:

Django注释允许您将自己的Comment类与自定义逻辑和表单连接起来。(更多信息) Django允许你使用一个自定义Profile对象来附加到你的User模型。这不是完全的IoC，但却是一个很好的方法。就我个人而言，我希望像注释框架那样取代hole User模型。(更多信息)