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。

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。

我不认为存在这样的列表，但是试着阅读这些文章:

DI会模糊代码(如果你没有使用好的IDE) Bob叔叔认为，误用IoC会导致糟糕的代码。 需要注意过度设计和创造不必要的多功能性。

基于构造函数的依赖注入(没有神奇的“框架”的帮助)是构造OO代码的一种干净而有益的方式。在我所见过的最好的代码库中，经过多年与Martin Fowler的其他前同事的相处，我开始注意到大多数以这种方式编写的优秀类最终都只有一个doSomething方法。

那么，主要的缺点是，一旦您意识到这只是一种笨拙的、冗长的OO方式，将闭包编写为类，以获得函数式编程的好处，那么您编写OO代码的动机就会迅速消失。

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。