这是我自己的第一反应:基本上任何模式都有同样的缺点。

学习是需要时间的 如果误解了，就会弊大于利 如果走到极端，工作量可能会超过收益

当您不断地使用技术来处理静态类型时，静态类型语言的假定好处似乎大大减少了。我刚刚采访的一家大型Java商店正在用静态代码分析绘制他们的构建依赖关系……它必须解析所有的Spring文件才能有效。

仅仅通过实现依赖注入就实现了代码的解耦，而没有实际解耦。我认为这是DI最危险的地方。

控制反转(不是完全依赖注入，但已经足够接近了)最大的“缺点”是，它倾向于去掉一个点来查看一个算法的概述。这基本上就是当你有解耦的代码时所发生的事情——在一个地方查看的能力是紧密耦合的产物。

在过去的6个月里，我一直在广泛使用Guice (Java DI框架)。虽然总的来说我认为它很棒(特别是从测试的角度来看)，但也有一些缺点。最值得注意的是:

Code can become harder to understand. Dependency injection can be used in very... creative... ways. For example I just came across some code that used a custom annotation to inject a certain IOStreams (eg: @Server1Stream, @Server2Stream). While this does work, and I'll admit has a certain elegance, it makes understanding the Guice injections a prerequisite to understanding the code. Higher learning curve when learning project. This is related to point 1. In order to understand how a project that uses dependency injection works, you need to understand both the dependency injection pattern and the specific framework. When I started at my current job I spent quite a few confused hours groking what Guice was doing behind the scenes. Constructors become large. Although this can be largely resolved with a default constructor or a factory. Errors can be obfuscated. My most recent example of this was I had a collision on 2 flag names. Guice swallowed the error silently and one of my flags wasn't initialized. Errors are pushed to run-time. If you configure your Guice module incorrectly (circular reference, bad binding, ...) most of the errors are not uncovered during compile-time. Instead, the errors are exposed when the program is actually run.

既然我已经抱怨过了。让我说，我将继续在我当前的项目中(很可能是在下一个项目中)使用Guice。依赖注入是一种非常强大的模式。但它肯定会让人困惑，无论你选择什么依赖注入框架，你几乎肯定会花一些时间咒骂。

另外，我同意其他发帖者的观点，依赖注入可能被过度使用。

它可以增加应用启动时间，因为IoC容器应该以适当的方式解析依赖关系，有时需要进行多次迭代。