尽管由于对象类型是对象创建的先决条件，所以虚拟构造函数的概念不太适合，但它并没有完全被推翻。

GOF的“工厂方法”设计模式利用了虚拟构造函数的“概念”，这在某些设计情况下很方便。

我们有，只是它不是一个构造函数:-)

struct A {
  virtual ~A() {}
  virtual A * Clone() { return new A; }
};

struct B : public A {
  virtual A * Clone() { return new B; }
};

int main() {

   A * a1 = new B;
   A * a2 = a1->Clone();    // virtual construction
   delete a2;
   delete a1;
}

尽管由于对象类型是对象创建的先决条件，所以虚拟构造函数的概念不太适合，但它并没有完全被推翻。

GOF的“工厂方法”设计模式利用了虚拟构造函数的“概念”，这在某些设计情况下很方便。

When a constructor is invoked, although there is no object created till that point, we still know the kind of object that is gonna be created because the specific constructor of the class to which the object belongs to has already been called. Virtual keyword associated with a function means the function of a particular object type is gonna be called. So, my thinking says that there is no need to make the virtual constructor because already the desired constructor whose object is gonna be created has been invoked and making constructor virtual is just a redundant thing to do because the object-specific constructor has already been invoked and this is same as calling class-specific function which is achieved through the virtual keyword. Although the inner implementation won’t allow virtual constructor for vptr and vtable related reasons.

Another reason is that C++ is a statically typed language and we need to know the type of a variable at compile-time. The compiler must be aware of the class type to create the object. The type of object to be created is a compile-time decision. If we make the constructor virtual then it means that we don’t need to know the type of the object at compile-time(that’s what virtual function provide. We don’t need to know the actual object and just need the base pointer to point an actual object call the pointed object’s virtual functions without knowing the type of the object) and if we don’t know the type of the object at compile time then it is against the statically typed languages. And hence, run-time polymorphism cannot be achieved. Hence, Constructor won’t be called without knowing the type of the object at compile-time. And so the idea of making a virtual constructor fails.

c++的虚拟构造函数是不可能的。例如，不能将构造函数标记为虚函数。试试这段代码

#include<iostream.h>
using namespace std;
class aClass
{
    public:
        virtual aClass()
        {   
        }  
};
int main()
{
    aClass a; 
}

它会导致错误。这段代码试图将构造函数声明为虚函数。 现在让我们试着理解为什么要使用virtual关键字。Virtual关键字用于提供运行时多态性。例如，试试这段代码。

#include<iostream.h>
using namespace std;
class aClass
{
    public:
        aClass()
        {
            cout<<"aClass contructor\n";
        }
        ~aClass()
        {
            cout<<"aClass destructor\n";
        }

};
class anotherClass:public aClass
{

    public:
        anotherClass()
        {
            cout<<"anotherClass Constructor\n";
        }
        ~anotherClass()
        {
            cout<<"anotherClass destructor\n";
        }

};
int main()
{
    aClass* a;
    a=new anotherClass;
    delete a;   
    getchar(); 
}

In main a=new anotherClass; allocates a memory for anotherClass in a pointer a declared as type of aClass.This causes both the constructor (In aClass and anotherClass) to call automatically.So we do not need to mark constructor as virtual.Because when an object is created it must follow the chain of creation (i.e first the base and then the derived classes). But when we try to delete a delete a; it causes to call only the base destructor.So we have to handle the destructor using virtual keyword. So virtual constructor is not possible but virtual destructor is.Thanks

与面向对象的语言(如Smalltalk或Python)不同，这些语言的构造函数是表示类的对象的虚拟方法(这意味着您不需要GoF抽象工厂模式，因为您可以传递表示类的对象，而不是自己创建)，c++是一种基于类的语言，并且没有表示语言的任何构造的对象。该类在运行时不作为对象存在，因此不能对其调用虚方法。

这符合“不用就不用付钱”的理念，尽管我所见过的每个大型c++项目最终都实现了某种形式的抽象工厂或反射。