It's cargo-cult style programming, sure. I think we need to be careful about just throwing that answer around willy-nilly, though. It was nice of you to provide a link to an article that discusses object construction, but logie17's specific question doesn't get referenced until the last couple of paragraphs.

It might be better to give a quick summary of why it's used (1: to allow object construction via an object rather than just as a class/package method; 2: "Cargo-cult" - I saw somebody else do this, so I'm doing it too even though I don't know why), why it's bad (1: construction via the object could mean a few different things, and you should avoid coding techniques that make your intention hard to fathom; 2: You shouldn't write a particular chunk of code if you don't know why you're writing it - if Billy Smith jumped off the Empire State Building, I suppose you would have to jump off the Empire State Building too), and then link to merlyn's article (for more details about object construction). It's probably a good idea to include a link explaining what cargo-cult programming is if you suspect that the questioner (or someone else reading your reply in distant years) is not familiar with the term.

So many parentheses ...

Sorry about being so pedantic. I don't think there's anything wrong about your reply, and the link is great. I just want folks to be careful that "It's cargo-cult" doesn't end up becoming a cargo-cult reply.