The difference is that wire uses code generation to handle DI, while Fx relies on reflection.
Both approaches have their pros and cons - code generations spits out a lot of boilerplate code which isn't so interesting, reflection makes "magic behind the scenes" making code debugging & indexing usages harder.
What I like most about Fx, however, is how it allows you to modularize your codebase - separating your code into independent modules. This is especially useful in a large codebase where there is a lot of infra going on - monitoring, tracing, logging, etc. With fx, you can encapsulate all this code & configuration into a common module which can be reused across services.
The result is that in your main function, you simply provide your module and have a lot of infra already setup out of the box.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The difference is that wire uses code generation to handle DI, while Fx relies on reflection.
Both approaches have their pros and cons - code generations spits out a lot of boilerplate code which isn't so interesting, reflection makes "magic behind the scenes" making code debugging & indexing usages harder.
What I like most about Fx, however, is how it allows you to modularize your codebase - separating your code into independent modules. This is especially useful in a large codebase where there is a lot of infra going on - monitoring, tracing, logging, etc. With fx, you can encapsulate all this code & configuration into a common module which can be reused across services.
The result is that in your main function, you simply provide your module and have a lot of infra already setup out of the box.