My perspective would be try/catch blocks are necessary to insure proper exception handling, but creating such blocks has performance implications. Since, Loops contain intensive repetitive computations, it is not recommended to put try/catch blocks inside loops. Additionally, it seems where this condition occurs, it is often "Exception" or "RuntimeException" which is caught. RuntimeException being caught in code should be avoided. Again, if if you work in a big company it's essential to log that exception properly, or stop runtime exception to happen. Whole point of this description is PLEASE AVOID USING TRY-CATCH BLOCKS IN LOOPS

我想添加我自己的0.02c，关于在哪里放置异常处理的一般问题时两个相互竞争的考虑因素:

The "wider" the responsibility of the try-catch block (i.e. outside the loop in your case) means that when changing the code at some later point, you may mistakenly add a line which is handled by your existing catch block; possibly unintentionally. In your case, this is less likely because you are explicitly catching a NumberFormatException The "narrower" the responsibility of the try-catch block, the more difficult refactoring becomes. Particularly when (as in your case) you are executing a "non-local" instruction from within the catch block (the return null statement).

如果它在内部，那么您将获得N次try/catch结构的开销，而不是只在外部获得一次。

每次调用Try/Catch结构都会增加方法执行的开销。只需要处理结构所需的一点点内存和处理器节拍。如果运行一个循环100次，假设每个try/catch调用的代价是1 tick，那么在循环内执行try/catch调用的代价是100 tick，而在循环外只执行1 tick。

我同意所有关于性能和可读性的帖子。然而，在某些情况下，这确实很重要。其他一些人也提到了这一点，但通过例子可能更容易理解。

考虑这个稍微修改过的例子:

public static void main(String[] args) {
    String[] myNumberStrings = new String[] {"1.2345", "asdf", "2.3456"};
    ArrayList asNumbers = parseAll(myNumberStrings);
}

public static ArrayList parseAll(String[] numberStrings){
    ArrayList myFloats = new ArrayList();

    for(int i = 0; i < numberStrings.length; i++){
        myFloats.add(new Float(numberStrings[i]));
    }
    return myFloats;
}

如果你想让parseAll()方法在有任何错误时返回null(就像原来的例子一样)，你可以把try/catch放在外面，像这样:

public static ArrayList parseAll1(String[] numberStrings){
    ArrayList myFloats = new ArrayList();
    try{
        for(int i = 0; i < numberStrings.length; i++){
            myFloats.add(new Float(numberStrings[i]));
        }
    } catch (NumberFormatException nfe){
        //fail on any error
        return null;
    }
    return myFloats;
}

实际上，您可能应该在这里返回一个错误，而不是null，通常我不喜欢有多个返回，但您可以理解。

另一方面，如果你想让它忽略问题，并解析任何它能解析的字符串，你可以把try/catch放在循环的内部，像这样:

public static ArrayList parseAll2(String[] numberStrings){
    ArrayList myFloats = new ArrayList();

    for(int i = 0; i < numberStrings.length; i++){
        try{
            myFloats.add(new Float(numberStrings[i]));
        } catch (NumberFormatException nfe){
            //don't add just this one
        }
    }

    return myFloats;
}

My perspective would be try/catch blocks are necessary to insure proper exception handling, but creating such blocks has performance implications. Since, Loops contain intensive repetitive computations, it is not recommended to put try/catch blocks inside loops. Additionally, it seems where this condition occurs, it is often "Exception" or "RuntimeException" which is caught. RuntimeException being caught in code should be avoided. Again, if if you work in a big company it's essential to log that exception properly, or stop runtime exception to happen. Whole point of this description is PLEASE AVOID USING TRY-CATCH BLOCKS IN LOOPS

上面没有提到的另一个方面是，每个try-catch都会对堆栈产生一些影响，这可能会对递归方法产生影响。

如果方法"outer()"调用方法"inner()"(它可能递归地调用自己)，如果可能的话，尝试在方法"outer()"中找到try-catch。我们在性能类中使用的一个简单的“堆栈崩溃”示例，当try-catch在内部方法中时，在大约6400帧时失败，当它在外部方法中时，在大约11,600帧时失败。

在现实世界中，如果您正在使用Composite模式并且具有大型、复杂的嵌套结构，这可能会成为一个问题。