I see. Thanks! Looking at wikipedia, it sure seems to be a case of an overloaded term.

I don’t generally use the first and second one you mention, because it’s in the “common sense / obvious” realm, and I don’t like to use complicated sounding jargon for simple concepts. For example:

// Good:
MyClass(Resource(configValue))

// Bad:
MyClass(configValue) // which insides does something a'la resource = Resource(configValue))

If this is an example of dependency inversion… hm, I suppose. I suppose having a word for it is fine. “Inversion” also doesn’t make much sense if you start out thinking that’s what makes sense to begin with. As for the “dependency injection”? Sounds complicated, but really isn’t. Not sure who these kinds of terms are supposed to help.

As for DI frameworks using the word injection. I’ve always thought made sense. Because the connotations of injections feel applicable. No one looks forward to “an injection”, and aside from the obvious, its usually done by someone else, and you might not be aware of the details of what happened, and you have no good way of figuring out what it was, or why you suddenly start feeling weird.

“DI frameworks” are Satan’s farts. Classpath-scanning nonsense that turns compile-time errors into runtime errors. Not only is your Ctr still coupled to your Svc, but both are now coupled to Spring.

Let’s qualify this: DI frameworks that use configuration files to specify the dependencies are Satan’s farts. You can use the DI pattern but do the injection in source code to get full compile-time type checking and all the benefits of a fully packaged JAR or similar binary. The root of the evil is having text files as part of the packaging, and not having the tooling to treat those files as part of the source code at build time.