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#)

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.
    }
}

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。

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。

Using factories or factory methods for all object creation, you can avoid invalid objects without throwing exceptions from constructors. The creation method should return the requested object if it's able to create one, or null if it's not. You lose a little bit of flexibility in handling construction errors in the user of a class, because returning null doesn't tell you what went wrong in the object creation. But it also avoids adding the complexity of multiple exception handlers every time you request an object, and the risk of catching exceptions you shouldn't handle.