如果您有一个自己开发的解决方案，依赖项就会在构造函数中直接出现。或者作为方法参数，这也不难发现。尽管框架管理的依赖关系，如果走到极端，就会开始变得像魔术一样。

然而，在太多的类中有太多的依赖项是一个明显的标志，说明你的类结构搞砸了。因此，在某种程度上，依赖注入(自行开发或框架管理)可以帮助发现那些可能隐藏在暗处的突出设计问题。

为了更好地说明第二点，这里是本文的一段摘录(原始来源)，我完全相信这是构建任何系统的基本问题，而不仅仅是计算机系统。

Suppose you want to design a college campus. You must delegate some of the design to the students and professors, otherwise the Physics building won't work well for the physics people. No architect knows enough about about what physics people need to do it all themselves. But you can't delegate the design of every room to its occupants, because then you'll get a giant pile of rubble. How can you distribute responsibility for design through all levels of a large hierarchy, while still maintaining consistency and harmony of overall design? This is the architectural design problem Alexander is trying to solve, but it's also a fundamental problem of computer systems development.

DI能解决这个问题吗?不。但它确实帮助你清楚地看到，如果你试图把设计每个房间的责任委托给它的居住者。

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。

If you're using DI without an IoC container, the biggest downside is you quickly see how many dependencies your code actually has and how tightly coupled everything really is. ("But I thought it was a good design!") The natural progression is to move towards an IoC container which can take a little bit of time to learn and implement (not nearly as bad as the WPF learning curve, but it's not free either). The final downside is some developers will begin to write honest to goodness unit tests and it will take them time to figure it out. Devs who could previously crank something out in half a day will suddenly spend two days trying to figure out how to mock all of their dependencies.

类似于马克·西曼(Mark Seemann)的回答(现已删除;只有超过1万个声誉点)，底线是你花时间成为一个更好的开发人员，而不是把代码拼凑在一起，然后把它扔出去/投入生产。你的企业更愿意选择哪一种?只有你能回答这个问题。

依赖注入是一种技术或模式，与任何框架无关。您可以手动连接依赖项。DI帮助您实现SR(单一职责)和SoC(关注点分离)。DI会带来更好的设计。从我的观点和经验来看，没有坏处。就像任何其他模式一样，你可能会弄错或误用它(但在DI的情况下很难)。

如果您使用框架将DI作为原则引入到遗留应用程序中，那么您可能犯的最大错误就是将其误用为服务定位器。DI+框架本身是伟大的，只是让事情变得更好，我看到它!从组织的角度来看，每一个新的过程、技术、模式……都有共同的问题:

你必须训练你的团队 您必须更改您的应用程序(这包括风险)

一般来说，你必须投入时间和金钱，除此之外，没有任何负面影响，真的!

这更像是吹毛求疵。但是依赖注入的一个缺点是，它使开发工具更难推理和导航代码。

具体来说，如果你在代码中控制-单击/命令-单击方法调用，它将带你到接口上的方法声明，而不是具体的实现。

这实际上是松散耦合代码(由接口设计的代码)的缺点，即使不使用依赖注入(即，即使只是使用工厂)也适用。但是依赖注入的出现真正鼓励了松耦合代码的普及，所以我想我应该提到它。

而且，松散耦合代码的好处远远超过这一点，因此我称之为吹毛求疵。尽管我工作了很长时间，知道如果您试图引入依赖注入，可能会遇到这种情况。

事实上，我敢大胆地猜测，对于依赖注入的每一个“缺点”，您都会发现许多优点远远超过它。

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。