我有一个这样的循环:
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
String myString = ...;
float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
myFloats[i] = myNum;
}
这是一个方法的主要内容，该方法的唯一目的是返回浮点数数组。我想让这个方法在出现错误时返回null，所以我把循环放在try…Catch block，像这样:
try {
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
String myString = ...;
float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
myFloats[i] = myNum;
}
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
return null;
}
但后来我也想到试一试……Catch块在循环中，像这样:
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
String myString = ...;
try {
float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
return null;
}
myFloats[i] = myNum;
}
是否有任何理由，性能或其他方面，更喜欢其中一个?
编辑:共识似乎是，将循环放在try/catch中更干净，可能是在它自己的方法中。然而，关于哪个速度更快仍存在争议。有人能测试一下并给出一个统一的答案吗?
As already mentioned, the performance is the same. However, user experience isn't necessarily identical. In the first case, you'll fail fast (i.e. after the first error), however if you put the try/catch block inside the loop, you can capture all the errors that would be created for a given call to the method. When parsing an array of values from strings where you expect some formatting errors, there are definitely cases where you'd like to be able to present all the errors to the user so that they don't need to try and fix them one by one.
好吧，在Jeffrey L Whitledge说没有性能差异之后(截至1997年)，我去测试了一下。我运行了一个小的基准测试:
public class Main {
private static final int NUM_TESTS = 100;
private static int ITERATIONS = 1000000;
// time counters
private static long inTime = 0L;
private static long aroundTime = 0L;
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_TESTS; i++) {
test();
ITERATIONS += 1; // so the tests don't always return the same number
}
System.out.println("Inside loop: " + (inTime/1000000.0) + " ms.");
System.out.println("Around loop: " + (aroundTime/1000000.0) + " ms.");
}
public static void test() {
aroundTime += testAround();
inTime += testIn();
}
public static long testIn() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
Integer i = tryInLoop();
long ret = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.println(i); // don't optimize it away
return ret;
}
public static long testAround() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
Integer i = tryAroundLoop();
long ret = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.println(i); // don't optimize it away
return ret;
}
public static Integer tryInLoop() {
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; i++) {
try {
count = Integer.parseInt(Integer.toString(count)) + 1;
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
return null;
}
}
return count;
}
public static Integer tryAroundLoop() {
int count = 0;
try {
for (int i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; i++) {
count = Integer.parseInt(Integer.toString(count)) + 1;
}
return count;
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
return null;
}
}
}
我使用javap检查了结果字节码，以确保没有任何内容得到内联。
结果表明，假设JIT优化微不足道，Jeffrey是正确的;在Java 6、Sun客户端VM上绝对没有性能差异(我没有访问其他版本)。整个测试的总时间差在几毫秒的数量级上。
因此，唯一要考虑的是什么看起来最干净。我发现第二种方式很难看，所以我要么坚持第一种方式，要么坚持雷·海耶斯的方式。
As already mentioned, the performance is the same. However, user experience isn't necessarily identical. In the first case, you'll fail fast (i.e. after the first error), however if you put the try/catch block inside the loop, you can capture all the errors that would be created for a given call to the method. When parsing an array of values from strings where you expect some formatting errors, there are definitely cases where you'd like to be able to present all the errors to the user so that they don't need to try and fix them one by one.
