异常的全部意义在于鼓励第一种风格:让错误处理被合并并处理一次，而不是在每个可能的错误位置立即处理。

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.

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).

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。

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。

性能:就像Jeffrey在他的回复中所说的，在Java中这并没有太大的区别。

通常，为了代码的可读性，在哪里捕获异常的选择取决于您是否希望循环继续处理。

在您的示例中，您在捕获异常时返回。在这种情况下，我会在循环中放入try/catch。如果你只是想捕捉一个坏值，但继续处理，把它放在里面。

第三种方法:您总是可以编写自己的静态ParseFloat方法，并在该方法中而不是在循环中处理异常处理。使异常处理与循环本身隔离!

class Parsing
{
    public static Float MyParseFloat(string inputValue)
    {
        try
        {
            return Float.parseFloat(inputValue);
        }
        catch ( NumberFormatException e )
        {
            return null;
        }
    }

    // ....  your code
    for(int i = 0; i < max; i++) 
    {
        String myString = ...;
        Float myNum = Parsing.MyParseFloat(myString);
        if ( myNum == null ) return;
        myFloats[i] = (float) myNum;
    }
}