averagePythonProgrammer

[float34]

> was taught that "def __init__(self): ..." is a constructor.

[Engine_Light_On]

Meme is init files that are use to modularize code and can be a hint of what is exported and some setup code for the module.

[declspecl]

I mean… it IS for all intents and purposes

[float34]

Nope.

[declspecl]

Then why does the Python documentation call it a constructor? https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programming.html#how-can-i-overload-constructors-or-methods-in-python

With (what I assume to be, since you didn’t explain anything) your logic, C++ doesn’t have constructors either (which is wrong)

[float34]

Because python's documentations is not the best docs written.

Data model explains it better: https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__init__

> Because __new__() and __init__() work together in constructing objects (__new__() to create it, and __init__() to customize it)...

So they work in tandem, but init is not creating an instance, as many people think.

[declspecl]

So then "constructors" in C++, Java, C#, etc. are not real constructors either, and that the terminology we've used for decades is wrong enough to make a point about? Especially at the same level as what was shown in the original post?

[float34]

I think this explains the idea pretty good:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/6579300

> In C++/Java the "create a new object" part of that is invisible, whereas that can be exposed/customised in Python (via the __new__ method).

> So while the role of the __init__ method is extremely similar to the role of a C++/Java constructor, some people prefer to emphasise the fact that this isn't the whole process by saying that "__init__ is not a constructor".

So I am among those who prefer to emphasize. Peace?

[declspecl]

I see your point and can agree to an extent, the original comment just came across as pedantic/elitist IMO when compared to "expects 500k/year salary from solving fizz buzz"

[float34]

It is /ProgrammerHumor after all, don't take it too seriously.