Should __init__() call the parent class's __init__()?

If you need something from super's __init__ to be done in addition to what is being done in the current class's __init__, you must call it yourself, since that will not happen automatically. But if you don't need anything from super's __init__, no need to call it. Example:

>>> class C(object):        def __init__(self):            self.b = 1>>> class D(C):        def __init__(self):            super().__init__() # in Python 2 use super(D, self).__init__()            self.a = 1>>> class E(C):        def __init__(self):            self.a = 1>>> d = D()>>> d.a1>>> d.b  # This works because of the call to super's init1>>> e = E()>>> e.a1>>> e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...Traceback (most recent call last):  File "<pyshell#70>", line 1, in <module>    e.b  # This is going to fail since nothing in E initializes b...AttributeError: 'E' object has no attribute 'b'

__del__ is the same way, (but be wary of relying on __del__ for finalization - consider doing it via the with statement instead).

I rarely use __new__. I do all the initialization in __init__.

In Anon's answer:
"If you need something from super's __init__ to be done in addition to what is being done in the current class's __init__ , you must call it yourself, since that will not happen automatically"

It's incredible: he is wording exactly the contrary of the principle of inheritance.

It is not that "something from super's __init__ (...) will not happen automatically" , it is that it WOULD happen automatically, but it doesn't happen because the base-class' __init__ is overriden by the definition of the derived-clas __init__

So then, WHY defining a derived_class' __init__ , since it overrides what is aimed at when someone resorts to inheritance ??

It's because one needs to define something that is NOT done in the base-class' __init__ , and the only possibility to obtain that is to put its execution in a derived-class' __init__ function.
In other words, one needs something in base-class' __init__ in addition to what would be automatically done in the base-classe' __init__ if this latter wasn't overriden.
NOT the contrary.

Then, the problem is that the desired instructions present in the base-class' __init__ are no more activated at the moment of instantiation. In order to offset this inactivation, something special is required: calling explicitly the base-class' __init__ , in order to KEEP , NOT TO ADD, the initialization performed by the base-class' __init__ .That's exactly what is said in the official doc:

An overriding method in a derived class may in fact want to extend rather than simply replace the base class method of the same name. There is a simple way to call the base class method directly: just call BaseClassName.methodname(self, arguments).
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html#inheritance

That's all the story:

• when the aim is to KEEP the initialization performed by the base-class, that is pure inheritance, nothing special is needed, one must just avoid to define an __init__ function in the derived class

• when the aim is to REPLACE the initialization performed by the base-class, __init__ must be defined in the derived-class

• when the aim is to ADD processes to the initialization performed by the base-class, a derived-class' __init__ must be defined , comprising an explicit call to the base-class __init__

What I feel astonishing in the post of Anon is not only that he expresses the contrary of the inheritance theory, but that there have been 5 guys passing by that upvoted without turning a hair, and moreover there have been nobody to react in 2 years in a thread whose interesting subject must be read relatively often.

In Python, calling the super-class' __init__ is optional. If you call it, it is then also optional whether to use the super identifier, or whether to explicitly name the super class:

object.__init__(self)

In case of object, calling the super method is not strictly necessary, since the super method is empty. Same for __del__.

On the other hand, for __new__, you should indeed call the super method, and use its return as the newly-created object - unless you explicitly want to return something different.