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。

我不能说明Objective-C中的最佳实践，但在c++中，构造函数抛出异常是可以的。特别是没有其他方法可以确保在不调用isOK()方法的情况下报告构造过程中遇到的异常情况。

函数try块特性是专门为支持构造函数成员初始化失败而设计的(尽管它也可以用于常规函数)。这是修改或丰富将要抛出的异常信息的唯一方法。但由于其最初的设计目的(在构造函数中使用)，它不允许空catch()子句包含异常。

严格地从Java的角度来说，任何时候初始化使用非法值的构造函数时，它都应该抛出异常。这样它就不会被构造成一个糟糕的状态。

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.
    }
}

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.