|
|
|
|
|
|
by taeric
3386 days ago
|
|
|
You underline what is essentially my biggest gripe with IOC. There seemed to have been an explosion of everyone wanting you to use a new fancy framework to make it happen. For the most part, constructor logic that simply sets dependent fields (and, importantly, does not do anything) along with not requiring fancy initialization shakeups goes a long way to easily testable things. That said, people that go out of their way to make a fixture for each individual method can be just as annoying as the folks that only do end to end testing. Basically, life is easy to argue at the strawman level. Breaks down quickly when there are "boots on the ground." (Or whatever other saying works.) |
|
|
One of the things I like about our environment is that we're always disrupting ourselves (maybe a little too much). So while it's true that there are many heavy weight DI tools (Castle.Windsor for ex), there are also lighter-weight ones (Ninject and co). At the end of the day, we each pick our heavy we want our tools to be (we can always implement IOC without a DI tool if you want to keep things bare boned).
> Basically, life is easy to argue at the strawman level. Breaks down quickly when there are "boots on the ground." (Or whatever other saying works.)
It's an interesting discussion for sure. And some of it is philosophical. When the "rubber hits the road" (or whatever saying works) and i'm stuck in the office at 2am trying refactor a ball of mud, I wish those who came before me had thought of this stuff.
Engineering. Not Programming.