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.

对我来说，这是一个有点哲学的设计决策。

拥有实例是非常好的，只要它们存在就有效，从ctor时间开始。对于许多重要的情况，如果无法进行内存/资源分配，则可能需要从ctor抛出异常。

其他一些方法是init()方法，它本身存在一些问题。其中之一是确保init()实际被调用。

一个变体使用惰性方法在第一次调用访问器/突变器时自动调用init()，但这要求任何潜在的调用者都必须担心对象是否有效。(而不是“它存在，因此它是有效的哲学”)。

我也看到过处理这个问题的各种设计模式。例如，可以通过ctor创建初始对象，但必须调用init()来获得包含的、初始化的具有访问器/突变器的对象。

每种方法都有其利弊;我已经成功地使用了所有这些方法。如果不是在创建对象的那一刻就创建现成的对象，那么我建议使用大量的断言或异常，以确保用户在init()之前不会进行交互。

齿顶高

我是从c++程序员的角度写的。我还假设您正确地使用了RAII习惯用法来处理抛出异常时释放的资源。

我所见过的关于异常的最好建议是，当且仅当替代方案是未能满足post条件或保持不变时，抛出异常。

该建议将不明确的主观决策(这是个好主意吗)替换为基于设计决策(不变条件和后置条件)的技术精确问题。

Constructors are just a particular, but not special, case for that advice. So the question becomes, what invariants should a class have? Advocates of a separate initialization method, to be called after construction, are suggesting that the class has two or more operating mode, with an unready mode after construction and at least one ready mode, entered after initialization. That is an additional complication, but acceptable if the class has multiple operating modes anyway. It is hard to see how that complication is worthwhile if the class would otherwise not have operating modes.

请注意，将setup推入单独的初始化方法中并不能避免抛出异常。构造函数可能抛出的异常现在将由初始化方法抛出。如果为未初始化的对象调用类中所有有用的方法，都必须抛出异常。

还要注意，避免构造函数抛出异常的可能性是很麻烦的，在许多标准库中在许多情况下是不可能的。这是因为这些库的设计者认为从构造函数抛出异常是个好主意。特别是，任何试图获取不可共享或有限资源(例如分配内存)的操作都可能失败，而这种失败通常在OO语言和库中通过抛出异常来表示。

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/

OP的问题有一个“语言不可知论”的标签…对于所有语言/情况，这个问题不能以同样的方式安全地回答。

下面的c#示例的类层次结构抛出了类B的构造函数，跳过了对类A的IDisposeable的立即调用。在main的使用退出时进行处置，跳过类A资源的显式处置。

例如，如果类A在构造时创建了一个套接字，连接到一个网络资源，在使用块之后可能仍然是这种情况(一个相对隐藏的异常)。

class A : IDisposable
{
    public A()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Initialize A's resources.");
    }

    public void Dispose()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Dispose A's resources.");
    }
}

class B : A, IDisposable
{
    public B()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Initialize B's resources.");
        throw new Exception("B construction failure: B can cleanup anything before throwing so this is not a worry.");
    }

    public new void Dispose()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Dispose B's resources.");
        base.Dispose();
    }
}
class C : B, IDisposable
{
    public C()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Initialize C's resources. Not called because B throws during construction. C's resources not a worry.");
    }

    public new void Dispose()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Dispose C's resources.");
        base.Dispose();
    }
}


class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        try
        {
            using (C c = new C())
            {
            }
        }
        catch
        {           
        }

        // Resource's allocated by c's "A" not explicitly disposed.
    }
}

是的，如果构造函数未能构建其内部部分之一，则它可以(通过选择)有责任抛出(并以某种语言声明)一个显式异常，这在构造函数文档中有适当的说明。

This is not the only option: It could finish the constructor and build an object, but with a method 'isCoherent()' returning false, in order to be able to signal an incoherent state (that may be preferable in certain case, in order to avoid a brutal interruption of the execution workflow due to an exception) Warning: as said by EricSchaefer in his comment, that can bring some complexity to the unit testing (a throw can increase the cyclomatic complexity of the function due to the condition that triggers it)

如果它因为调用者而失败(比如调用者提供了一个空参数，而被调用的构造函数需要一个非空参数)，构造函数无论如何都会抛出一个未检查的运行时异常。