Dependency Injector VS FizzBuzzEnterpris

Nothing to do with the nature of the language, but with the nature of the program.

If you're writing a few line script, you don't need a DI container. Once your program gets large, it becomes extremely messy without one. It's no surprise projects like [1] exist.

[1] https://github.com/ets-labs/python-dependency-injector

Totally agree with this. And I’ve found this pattern pairs really well with https://python-dependency-injector.ets-labs.org/

dependency_injector: https://github.com/ets-labs/python-dependency-injector

As projects continue to grow, its recommended to utilise a dependency injection framework to “inject” these dependencies, such as Dependency Injector, to inject dependency arguments automatically ✨.

One approach is to pass this config as a variable to every class it is required, which I dont prefer. Another option is to annotate the config class as singleton and create the config object at every place where I need them. I also came across this library called Dependency_Injector. https://python-dependency-injector.ets-labs.org/ This seems a bit heavy weight for my use case though. I am looking forward to know how other solve this problem

Dependency Injector

dependency-injector (docs) is python library that provides a framework which enables you to implement DI and IoC in Python.

> I'll answer your question with a question: Have you seen https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... ? :)

You can write that kind of crap in any language, including C++.

There’s a difference between complexity that’s inherent to the problem, and complexity that’s added by developers who have drunk architectural cool aid.

This is an example where all of the complexity is caused by rigid adherence to the most popular architectural patterns of about 10 years ago.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It looks completely ridiculous to modern eyes, but during peak OOP it was just how you should do it.

If you like simplicity then your fizz buzz implementation would be a few lines.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... isn't too far removed from some of what I've seen in big tech, especially architecture-wise. Certainly less costly absurdity.

What you need is Fizzbuzz, Enterprise Edition

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It's been a decade since I used C# but the corporate design pattern culture of that language back then turned me off of it forever.

Everything looked like this: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Maybe it's better now but the Java/C# practice of shoveling largely empty classes around with an IDE isn't something I'd point to as a good example.

```

With your example I had to think for about 1-2 min before it made sense. If the codebase is full of clever stuff then I have to spend hours understanding all of the clever things before I can make changes. If everything is simple then it's easy to change.

If you want to see where overengineering leads you then take a look at this project. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

It is satire but I have absolutely worked in places that write code like that.

Good programmers know that it's 10x times harder to read code than write it, so they deliberately keep it simple so that they can read it later.

I did something similar a 4 or so years back. I wrote something in a month (+ a couple of working with stakeholders to make sure it did what it should). I did it in a legacy tech stack that the architects didn't like, on the side of the main activity, as the deadline was coming close and some hireing processes were slow.

A team of around devs 5 (some coming and going) having been trying to solve the same problem since, but they're still not being close to finished.

In other words, the productivity is in the order 50x to 100x slower than when I did it. Rather, the main reason was that I knew how to write code like that, while they were set up to fail.

Basically, some architect was making all sorts of unnecessary demands for how to wite the code, and the programers were not familiar with much of the tech stack that was introduced.

Also, coding standards were really verbose, easily 10x-30x what I wrote, in lines of code. The current state of what they have look suspiciously like FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition:

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

TLDR; Incompetent tech leadership prone to cargo-culting, can slow down productivity to virtually zero. In some cases, productivity can go up by ~100x if ignoring their demands.

I swear I've worked with people who if they were shown FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition wouldn't be able to see the joke as that's how they naturally write all code.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Reminds me of FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition . https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

You never know when you might need to change the implementation of how the "Fuzz" string is returned, so you need a FuzzStringReturner.

And you never know when you might need multiple different ways of returning "Fuzz", so you need a FuzzStringReturnerFactory.

And that barely scratches the surface of what you need.