除了一大堆不错的答案之外，我还想举一个我自己的小例子来说明好的和坏的做法。是的，我不是那种会扔石头的人!

比如说，你想要一个小程序通过控制台I/O将一个字符串转换成base64格式。这是一种幼稚的方法:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        /*
         * BadEncoder: High-level class *contains* low-level I/O functionality.
         * Hence, you'll have to fiddle with BadEncoder whenever you want to change
         * the I/O mode or details. Not good. A good encoder should be I/O-agnostic --
         * problems with I/O shouldn't break the encoder!
         */
        BadEncoder.Run();            
    }
}

public static class BadEncoder
{
    public static void Run()
    {
        Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBase64String(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(Console.ReadLine())));
    }
}    

DIP基本上是说高级组件不应该依赖于低级实现，根据Robert C. Martin(《清洁架构》)的说法，“级别”是指与I/O的距离。但是如何摆脱这种困境呢?简单地让中央编码器只依赖于接口，而不考虑这些接口是如何实现的:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {           
        /* Demo of the Dependency Inversion Principle (= "High-level functionality
         * should not depend upon low-level implementations"): 
         * You can easily implement new I/O methods like
         * ConsoleReader, ConsoleWriter without ever touching the high-level
         * Encoder class!!!
         */            
        GoodEncoder.Run(new ConsoleReader(), new ConsoleWriter());        }
}

public static class GoodEncoder
{
    public static void Run(IReadable input, IWriteable output)
    {
        output.WriteOutput(Convert.ToBase64String(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(input.ReadInput())));
    }
}

public interface IReadable
{
    string ReadInput();
}

public interface IWriteable
{
    void WriteOutput(string txt);
}

public class ConsoleReader : IReadable
{
    public string ReadInput()
    {
        return Console.ReadLine();
    }
}

public class ConsoleWriter : IWriteable
{
    public void WriteOutput(string txt)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(txt);
    }
}

注意，你不需要触摸GoodEncoder来改变I/O模式——这个类对它知道的I/O接口很满意;任何IReadable和IWriteable的低级实现都不会打扰它。

依赖倒置:依赖抽象，而不是具体。

控制反转:主要与抽象，以及主要如何成为系统的粘合剂。

以下是一些关于这方面的好文章:

https://coderstower.com/2019/03/26/dependency-inversion-why-you-shouldnt-avoid-it/

https://coderstower.com/2019/04/02/main-and-abstraction-the-decoupled-peers/

https://coderstower.com/2019/04/09/inversion-of-control-putting-all-together/

这里的其他人已经给出了很好的答案和例子。

DIP之所以重要，是因为它保证了oo原则的“松散耦合设计”。

软件中的对象不应该进入一个层次结构，其中一些对象是顶级对象，依赖于低级对象。底层对象的变化会波及到顶层对象，这使得软件非常容易发生变化。

你希望你的“顶级”对象非常稳定，不容易改变，因此你需要颠倒依赖关系。

除了一大堆不错的答案之外，我还想举一个我自己的小例子来说明好的和坏的做法。是的，我不是那种会扔石头的人!

比如说，你想要一个小程序通过控制台I/O将一个字符串转换成base64格式。这是一种幼稚的方法:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        /*
         * BadEncoder: High-level class *contains* low-level I/O functionality.
         * Hence, you'll have to fiddle with BadEncoder whenever you want to change
         * the I/O mode or details. Not good. A good encoder should be I/O-agnostic --
         * problems with I/O shouldn't break the encoder!
         */
        BadEncoder.Run();            
    }
}

public static class BadEncoder
{
    public static void Run()
    {
        Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBase64String(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(Console.ReadLine())));
    }
}    

DIP基本上是说高级组件不应该依赖于低级实现，根据Robert C. Martin(《清洁架构》)的说法，“级别”是指与I/O的距离。但是如何摆脱这种困境呢?简单地让中央编码器只依赖于接口，而不考虑这些接口是如何实现的:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {           
        /* Demo of the Dependency Inversion Principle (= "High-level functionality
         * should not depend upon low-level implementations"): 
         * You can easily implement new I/O methods like
         * ConsoleReader, ConsoleWriter without ever touching the high-level
         * Encoder class!!!
         */            
        GoodEncoder.Run(new ConsoleReader(), new ConsoleWriter());        }
}

public static class GoodEncoder
{
    public static void Run(IReadable input, IWriteable output)
    {
        output.WriteOutput(Convert.ToBase64String(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(input.ReadInput())));
    }
}

public interface IReadable
{
    string ReadInput();
}

public interface IWriteable
{
    void WriteOutput(string txt);
}

public class ConsoleReader : IReadable
{
    public string ReadInput()
    {
        return Console.ReadLine();
    }
}

public class ConsoleWriter : IWriteable
{
    public void WriteOutput(string txt)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(txt);
    }
}

注意，你不需要触摸GoodEncoder来改变I/O模式——这个类对它知道的I/O接口很满意;任何IReadable和IWriteable的低级实现都不会打扰它。

基本上它说:

类应该依赖于抽象(例如接口，抽象类)，而不是特定的细节(实现)。

如果我们可以假定公司的“高级”员工是通过执行他们的计划来获得报酬的，并且这些计划是由许多“低级”员工的计划的综合执行来交付的，那么我们可以说，如果高级员工的计划描述以任何方式与任何低级员工的具体计划耦合在一起，那么这通常是一个糟糕的计划。

If a high level executive has a plan to "improve delivery time", and indicates that an employee in the shipping line must have coffee and do stretches each morning, then that plan is highly coupled and has low cohesion. But if the plan makes no mention of any specific employee, and in fact simply requires "an entity that can perform work is prepared to work", then the plan is loosely coupled and more cohesive: the plans do not overlap and can easily be substituted. Contractors, or robots, can easily replace the employees and the high level's plan remains unchanged.

“高级”在依赖倒置原则中意味着“更重要”。