Using factories or factory methods for all object creation, you can avoid invalid objects without throwing exceptions from constructors. The creation method should return the requested object if it's able to create one, or null if it's not. You lose a little bit of flexibility in handling construction errors in the user of a class, because returning null doesn't tell you what went wrong in the object creation. But it also avoids adding the complexity of multiple exception handlers every time you request an object, and the risk of catching exceptions you shouldn't handle.

Throwing an exception during construction is a great way to make your code way more complex. Things that would seem simple suddenly become hard. For example, let's say you have a stack. How do you pop the stack and return the top value? Well, if the objects in the stack can throw in their constructors (constructing the temporary to return to the caller), you can't guarantee that you won't lose data (decrement stack pointer, construct return value using copy constructor of value in stack, which throws, and now have a stack that just lost an item)! This is why std::stack::pop does not return a value, and you have to call std::stack::top.

这个问题在这里有很好的描述，检查第10项，编写异常安全的代码。

Eric Lippert说有四种例外。

Fatal exceptions are not your fault, you cannot prevent them, and you cannot sensibly clean up from them. Boneheaded exceptions are your own darn fault, you could have prevented them and therefore they are bugs in your code. Vexing exceptions are the result of unfortunate design decisions. Vexing exceptions are thrown in a completely non-exceptional circumstance, and therefore must be caught and handled all the time. And finally, exogenous exceptions appear to be somewhat like vexing exceptions except that they are not the result of unfortunate design choices. Rather, they are the result of untidy external realities impinging upon your beautiful, crisp program logic.

构造函数本身不应该抛出致命异常，但它执行的代码可能会导致致命异常。像“内存不足”这样的事情不是您可以控制的，但是如果它发生在构造函数中，嘿，它就发生了。

愚蠢的异常永远不应该出现在任何代码中，所以它们应该被清除。

构造函数不应该抛出恼人的异常(例如Int32.Parse())，因为它们没有非异常情况。

最后，应该避免外生异常，但如果在构造函数中执行的某些操作依赖于外部环境(如网络或文件系统)，则抛出异常是合适的。

参考链接:https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ericlippert/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions/

There is generally nothing to be gained by divorcing object initialization from construction. RAII is correct, a successful call to the constructor should either result in a fully initialized live object or it should fail, and ALL failures at any point in any code path should always throw an exception. You gain nothing by use of a separate init() method except additional complexity at some level. The ctor contract should be either it returns a functional valid object or it cleans up after itself and throws.

考虑一下，如果实现了单独的init方法，仍然必须调用它。它仍然有可能抛出异常，它们仍然必须被处理，而且它们实际上总是必须在构造函数之后立即被调用，除了现在你有4种可能的对象状态而不是2种(IE，已构造，初始化，未初始化，失败vs只是有效和不存在)。

In any case I've run across in 25 years of OO development cases where it seems like a separate init method would 'solve some problem' are design flaws. If you don't need an object NOW then you shouldn't be constructing it now, and if you do need it now then you need it initialized. KISS should always be the principle followed, along with the simple concept that the behavior, state, and API of any interface should reflect WHAT the object does, not HOW it does it, client code should not even be aware that the object has any kind of internal state that requires initialization, thus the init after pattern violates this principle.

当构造函数无法完成所述对象的构造时，它应该抛出异常。

例如，如果构造函数应该分配1024 KB的ram，但它没有这样做，它应该抛出一个异常，这样构造函数的调用者就知道对象还没有准备好使用，并且在某个地方存在需要修复的错误。

半初始化和半死亡的对象只会引起问题和问题，因为调用者确实没有办法知道。我宁愿让我的构造函数在出错时抛出一个错误，而不是不得不依赖编程来运行返回true或false的isOK()函数的调用。

参见c++常见问题解答第17.2和17.4节。

一般来说，我发现如果构造函数被编写，那么它们就不会失败，那么移植和维护结果的代码就会更容易，而可能失败的代码则放在一个单独的方法中，该方法返回错误代码并使对象处于惰性状态。