sebastianv1
commented
4 years ago @kaushalyap That's a great question, and it might even be a good idea for us to write up a little section in the README explaining how Cleanse differs from other DI frameworks out there.
I won't speak too much about the particulars of what SwiftInject does and doesn't provide, and tell you about the motivation and goals behind Cleanse. Cleanse was influenced by Google's Guice DI framework and aims to provide the same feature set as established frameworks like Guice and Dagger, but with a strong focus on creating idiomatic Swift APIs and leveraging the language's static type system. For example, when registering dependencies, we code-gen factory functions that allow you simply call binder.bind(CoffeeMachine.self).to(factory: CoffeeMachine.init) where CoffeeMachine.init expands to a closure that looks something like (coffee: Coffee, water: Water) -> CoffeeMachine. Registering a dependency with SwiftInject might require you to call its resolve function many times for every required dependency.
Although feature rich, Cleanse also aims to remain as lightweight and simple as possible. It doesn't use any Swift reflection or swizzling and we think carefully about adding new core features. Remaining small was a motivating factor behind creating a plugin interface (RFC #118) that developers can use to add their own features and validations to the object graph that don't exist in the core library.
Lastly, we have a focus on keeping Cleanse highly performant. We've been using Cleanse here at Square for over 3 years with a huge object graph and haven't had any slowness fetching or resolving dependencies and intend to keep it that way. At the end of the day, I think both frameworks do a great job of providing a dependency injection library, and the differences lie in the implementation details and feature set.
kaushalyap
I would like to know how this library differ from SwiftInject? What advantages Cleanse have over SwiftInject?