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/

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。

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。

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.

构造函数的任务是使对象进入可用状态。关于这个问题，基本上有两种观点。

一组人赞成两阶段建设。构造函数只是将对象带入一个休眠状态，在这种状态下它拒绝做任何工作。还有一个额外的函数来进行实际的初始化。

我一直不明白这种方法背后的原因。我坚决支持单阶段构造，即对象在构造后完全初始化并可用。

如果单阶段构造函数未能完全初始化对象，则应该抛出。如果对象不能初始化，则必须不允许它存在，因此构造函数必须抛出。

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.
    }
}