__init__ explanation please

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_weil at klapptsowieso.net> writes:

> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>> To restate it more correctly: __init__ is akin to a constructor.
>>
> No. See Hrvoje Niksic's reply (and Ben Finney's to which it was a
> reply).
>
> __init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after
> creation). It is called, /after/ the instance has been constructed

I don't understand the purpose of this "correction".  After all,
__init__ *is* the closest equivalent to what other languages would
call a constructor.  Take C++ and Java, the two most popular OO
languages in existence.  Their constructors also "initialize" an
instance -- the actual allocation is left to the caller (new or stack
in C++) or to the garbage collector.  They even share with Python the
convention of not returning the constructed value, they operate purely
on side effect, just like Python's __init__.  And yet, no one says
that they are somehow not constructors because of that.

Wikipedia calls the constructor "a special method used in object
oriented programming which puts the object's members into a valid
state."  Again, exactly what __init__ does.