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。

如果你正在编写ui控件(ASPX, WinForms, WPF，…)，你应该避免在构造函数中抛出异常，因为设计器(Visual Studio)在创建控件时无法处理它们。了解你的控件生命周期(控件事件)，尽可能使用惰性初始化。

我不确定是否有答案可以完全与语言无关。有些语言处理异常和内存管理的方式不同。

I've worked before under coding standards requiring exceptions never be used and only error codes on initializers, because developers had been burned by the language poorly handling exceptions. Languages without garbage collection will handle heap and stack very differently, which may matter for non RAII objects. It is important though that a team decide to be consistent so they know by default if they need to call initializers after constructors. All methods (including constructors) should also be well documented as to what exceptions they can throw, so callers know how to handle them.

我通常支持单阶段构造，因为很容易忘记初始化对象，但也有很多例外。

Your language support for exceptions isn't very good. You have a pressing design reason to still use new and delete Your initialization is processor intensive and should run async to the thread that created the object. You are creating a DLL that may be throwing exceptions outside it's interface to an application using a different language. In this case it may not be so much an issue of not throwing exceptions, but making sure they are caught before the public interface. (You can catch C++ exceptions in C#, but there are hoops to jump through.) Static constructors (C#)

请注意，如果您在初始化器中抛出异常，如果任何代码使用[[[MyObj alloc] init] autorelease]模式，那么您将最终泄漏，因为异常将跳过自动释放。

看这个问题:

在init中引发异常时如何防止泄漏?

构造函数抛出异常是合理的，只要它正确地清理了自己。如果您遵循RAII范式(资源获取即初始化)，那么构造函数通常会做有意义的工作;如果构造函数不能完全初始化，那么编写良好的构造函数将自行清理。

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。