In Python, __new__ is used to initialize immutable types and __init__ typically initializes mutable types. If __init__ were removed f
Everything you can do in __init__ can also be done in __new__.
Then, why use __init__?
Because you don't have to store instance in variable (obj in your example code), and later bother returning it. You can focus on what you realy want to do – initializing mutable object.
Per When to use __new__ vs. __init__
__new__is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is responsible for returning a new instance of your class. In contrast,__init__doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the instance after it's been created.
Also the class of class is type, and type.__call__() is implemented something like below refer to the above description:
def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = cls.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
if isinstance(obj, cls):
obj.__init__(*args, **kwargs)
return obj
We know __init__() just do a part of __new__() can do anything to that object before the object is returned.
In general, you shouldn't need to override
__new__unless you're subclassing an immutable type like str, int, unicode or tuple.
So it is not good to remove __init__ from the language, and it is better to always use __init__() better than using __new__().
Here is one history of Low-level constructors and __new__().
Before explaining missing functionality let's get back to definition of __new__ and __init__:
__new__ is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is responsible for returning a new instance of your class.
However, __init__ doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the instance after it's been created.
Mainly you would lose out on flexibility. You would get a lot of semantics headaches and loose separation of initializatin and construction (by joining __new__ andinit we are to joining construction and initialization into one step...).
Let's take a look on snippet below:
class A(object):
some_property = 'some_value'
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
obj.some_property = cls.some_property
return obj
class B(A):
some_property = 2
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = super(B, cls).__new__(cls)
return obj
Consequences of moving __init__ actions into __new__:
Initialize B before A: When you are using __new__ method instead of __init__ your first step of creating new instance of B is calling A.__new__ as side effect you cannot initialize B before A is initialized ( access and assign some properties to new B instance). Using of __init__ gives you such flexability.
Loose control on initializing order: let's imagine that you have B_N inherited from two classes (A_N1, A_N2), now you would miss controlling of order of initializing new instance of B_N(what is the order you are going to initialize instances ? it could be matter... what is weird.)
Properties and methods mess: you would miss access to A.some_property (cls would be equal to B while instantiating new instance of B. However directly accessing of A.some_property is possible, but my guess it's at least weird to access properties within class throught class name and not by using classmethods).
You cannot re-initialize an existed instance without creating new one or implementation special logic for this ( thanks to @platinhom for idea )
__init__ do that __new__ cannot?There are no actions that cannot be done in __new__ and can in __init__, because actions that __init__ performs is a subset of the actions that can be performed by __new__.
An interesting moment from Python Docs, Pickling and unpickling normal class instances#object.getinitargs regarding when __init__ could be usefull:
When a pickled class instance is unpickled, its init() method is normally not invoked.