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#)

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。

OO中通常的约定是对象方法确实有功能。

因此，作为一个推论，永远不要从构造函数/init中返回僵尸对象。

僵尸没有功能，可能缺少内部组件。只是一个空指针异常等待发生。

很多年前，我第一次在Objective C中制作僵尸。

就像所有的经验法则一样，也有一个“例外”。

一个特定的接口完全有可能有这样的契约 存在一个允许触发异常的方法“initialize”。 在调用initialize之前，实现此接口的对象可能不会正确响应除属性设置器之外的任何调用。在引导过程中，我在OO操作系统中的设备驱动程序中使用了这种方法，而且它是可行的。

一般来说，你不需要僵尸对象。在Smalltalk这样的语言中，使用变得有点冒火，但是过度使用变得也是一种糟糕的风格。be允许一个对象在原地变成另一个对象，因此不需要信封包装器(高级c++)或策略模式(GOF)。

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。

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。

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/