以下几点:

DI增加了复杂性，通常是通过增加类的数量，因为责任分离得更多，这并不总是有益的 您的代码将(在某种程度上)耦合到您使用的依赖注入框架(或者更一般地说，如何决定实现DI模式) 执行类型解析的DI容器或方法通常会导致轻微的运行时损失(非常可以忽略不计，但它确实存在)

通常，解耦的好处是使每个任务更易于阅读和理解，但增加了编排更复杂任务的复杂性。

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。

代码可读性。由于依赖关系隐藏在XML文件中，因此您无法轻松地找出代码流。

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。

我发现构造函数注入会导致构造函数又大又丑(我在整个代码库中都使用它——也许我的对象太细了?)此外，有时使用构造函数注入会导致可怕的循环依赖(尽管这种情况非常罕见)，因此您可能会发现自己必须在更复杂的系统中拥有某种就绪状态生命周期，并进行几轮依赖注入。

然而，我更喜欢构造器注入而不是setter注入，因为一旦我的对象被构造，那么我就可以毫无疑问地知道它处于什么状态，它是在单元测试环境中还是加载到某个IOC容器中。这，以一种迂回的方式说，我觉得是setter注入的主要缺点。

(作为旁注，我确实发现整个主题相当“宗教”，但你的成就将随着开发团队的技术狂热程度而变化!)

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。