OOP / language design question

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In article <1145969107.837185.212970 at e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
 "Carl Banks" <invalidemail at aerojockey.com> wrote:

>bruno at modulix wrote:
>> cctv.star at gmail.com wrote:
>> > I was wondering, why you always have to remember to call bases'
>> > constructors
>>
>> <pedantic>
>> s/constructors/__init__/
>>
>> the __init__() method is *not* the constructor. Object's instanciation
>> is a two-stage process:  __new__() is called first, then __init__().
>> </pedantic>
>
>You know, Python's __init__ has almost the same semantics as C++
>constructors (they both initialize something that's already been
>allocated in memory, and neither can return a substitute object).  I
>actually think constructors are misnamed in C++, they should be called
>initializers (and destructors finalizers).

"Constructor" is also the term used for the corresponding method in Java.

Is there any OO language that does not use "constructor" in this sense? 
I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology.