forEach的替代方案，以避免“for each”：

List<String> someList = new ArrayList<String>();

变体1（普通）：

someList.stream().forEach(listItem -> {
    System.out.println(listItem);
});

变体2（并行执行（更快））：

someList.parallelStream().forEach(listItem -> {
    System.out.println(listItem);
});

它看起来像这样。非常粗糙。

for (Iterator<String> i = someList.iterator(); i.hasNext(); )
        System.out.println(i.next());

Sun文档中对每一项都有很好的描述。

for (Iterator<String> itr = someList.iterator(); itr.hasNext(); ) {
   String item = itr.next();
   System.out.println(item);
}

它消除了所有基本的循环混乱，为代码增添了美感。它为您的代码提供了一个干净的外观，如下所示。

循环正常：

void cancelAll(Collection<TimerTask> list) {
    for (Iterator<TimerTask> i = list.iterator(); i.hasNext();)
         i.next().cancel();
}

用于每个：

void cancelAll(Collection<TimerTask> list) {
    for (TimerTask t : list)
        t.cancel();
}

for each是实现Iterator的集合上的构造。记住，您的集合应该实现Iterator；否则，不能将其用于每个。

以下行读作“for each TimerTask t in list”

for (TimerTask t : list)

每种情况下出现错误的可能性较小。您不必担心初始化迭代器或初始化循环计数器并终止它（在存在错误的地方）。

Java“for each”循环构造将允许对两种类型的对象进行迭代：

T[]（任何类型的数组）java.lang.Iterable<T>

Iterable＜T＞接口只有一个方法：Iterator＜T＞迭代器（）。这对Collection＜T＞类型的对象有效，因为Collection＜T＜接口扩展了Iterable＜T＞。

在Java5中添加的for each循环（也称为“增强的for循环”）相当于使用Java.util.Interator——这是一个语法糖。因此，在逐个按顺序读取每个元素时，应始终在迭代器上选择for each，因为它更方便和简洁。

对于每个

for (int i : intList) {
   System.out.println("An element in the list: " + i);
}

迭代器

Iterator<Integer> intItr = intList.iterator();
while (intItr.hasNext()) {
   System.out.println("An element in the list: " + intItr.next());
}

在某些情况下，您必须直接使用迭代器。例如，在使用For each时尝试删除元素可能会（将？）导致ConcurrentModificationException。

对于每个与For循环：基本区别

for循环和for each之间的唯一实际区别是，在可索引对象的情况下，您无权访问索引。需要基本for循环时的示例：

for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
   if(i < 5) {
      // Do something special
   }  else {
      // Do other stuff
   }
}

尽管您可以手动为每个创建单独的索引int变量，

int idx = -1;
for (int i : intArray) {
   idx++;
   ...
}

…不建议这样做，因为变量范围并不理想，基本的for循环只是这个用例的标准和预期格式。

对于每个与For循环：性能

访问集合时，for each比基本for循环的数组访问快得多。然而，当访问数组时（至少是使用原始数组和包装数组时），通过索引访问的速度要快得多。

为基元int数组的迭代器和索引访问之间的差异计时

在访问int或Integer数组时，索引比迭代器快23-40%。这是本文底部测试类的输出，它将100个元素的原始int数组中的数字相加（a是迭代器，B是索引）：

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 358,597,622 nanoseconds
Test B: 269,167,681 nanoseconds
B faster by 89,429,941 nanoseconds (24.438799231635727% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 377,461,823 nanoseconds
Test B: 278,694,271 nanoseconds
B faster by 98,767,552 nanoseconds (25.666236154695838% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 288,953,495 nanoseconds
Test B: 207,050,523 nanoseconds
B faster by 81,902,972 nanoseconds (27.844689860906513% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 375,373,765 nanoseconds
Test B: 283,813,875 nanoseconds
B faster by 91,559,890 nanoseconds (23.891659337194227% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 375,790,818 nanoseconds
Test B: 220,770,915 nanoseconds
B faster by 155,019,903 nanoseconds (40.75164734599769% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000
Test A: 326,373,762 nanoseconds
Test B: 202,555,566 nanoseconds
B faster by 123,818,196 nanoseconds (37.437545972215744% faster)

我还对Integer数组运行了这个，索引仍然是明显的赢家，但只快了18%到25%。

对于集合，迭代器比索引更快

然而，对于整数列表来说，迭代器显然是赢家。只需将测试类中的int数组更改为：

List<Integer> intList = Arrays.asList(new Integer[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100});

并对测试函数进行必要的更改（int[]到List<Integer>，length到size（）等）：

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntegerList 1000000
Test A: 3,429,929,976 nanoseconds
Test B: 5,262,782,488 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,832,852,512 nanoseconds (34.326681820485675% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntegerList 1000000
Test A: 2,907,391,427 nanoseconds
Test B: 3,957,718,459 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,050,327,032 nanoseconds (26.038700083921256% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntegerList 1000000
Test A: 2,566,004,688 nanoseconds
Test B: 4,221,746,521 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,655,741,833 nanoseconds (38.71935684115413% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntegerList 1000000
Test A: 2,770,945,276 nanoseconds
Test B: 3,829,077,158 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,058,131,882 nanoseconds (27.134122749113843% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntegerList 1000000
Test A: 3,467,474,055 nanoseconds
Test B: 5,183,149,104 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,715,675,049 nanoseconds (32.60101667104192% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntList 1000000
Test A: 3,439,983,933 nanoseconds
Test B: 3,509,530,312 nanoseconds
A faster by 69,546,379 nanoseconds (1.4816434912159906% faster)

[C:\java_code\]java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntList 1000000
Test A: 3,451,101,466 nanoseconds
Test B: 5,057,979,210 nanoseconds
A faster by 1,606,877,744 nanoseconds (31.269164666060377% faster)

在一次测试中，它们几乎是等价的，但在集合中，迭代器获胜。

*这篇文章基于我在Stack Overflow上写的两个答案：

Java中for每个循环的用法和语法我应该使用迭代器还是forloop进行迭代？

更多信息：for-each循环和迭代器哪个更有效？

完整测试类

在阅读了关于堆栈溢出的问题后，我创建了一个比较类做任何两件事所需的时间：

import  java.text.NumberFormat;
import  java.util.Locale;

/**
   <P>{@code java TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray 1000000}</P>

   @see  <CODE><A HREF="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/180158/how-do-i-time-a-methods-execution-in-java">https://stackoverflow.com/questions/180158/how-do-i-time-a-methods-execution-in-java</A></CODE>
 **/
public class TimeIteratorVsIndexIntArray {

    public static final NumberFormat nf = NumberFormat.getNumberInstance(Locale.US);

    public static final void main(String[] tryCount_inParamIdx0) {
        int testCount;

        // Get try-count from a command-line parameter
        try {
           testCount = Integer.parseInt(tryCount_inParamIdx0[0]);
        }
        catch(ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException | NumberFormatException x) {
           throw  new IllegalArgumentException("Missing or invalid command line parameter: The number of testCount for each test. " + x);
        }

        //Test proper...START
        int[] intArray = new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100};

        long lStart = System.nanoTime();
        for(int i = 0; i < testCount; i++) {
           testIterator(intArray);
        }

        long lADuration = outputGetNanoDuration("A", lStart);

        lStart = System.nanoTime();
        for(int i = 0; i < testCount; i++) {
           testFor(intArray);
        }

        long lBDuration = outputGetNanoDuration("B", lStart);

        outputGetABTestNanoDifference(lADuration, lBDuration, "A", "B");
    }

    private static final void testIterator(int[] int_array) {
       int total = 0;
       for(int i = 0; i < int_array.length; i++) {
          total += int_array[i];
       }
    }

    private static final void testFor(int[] int_array) {
       int total = 0;
       for(int i : int_array) {
          total += i;
       }
    }
    //Test proper...END

    //Timer testing utilities...START
    public static final long outputGetNanoDuration(String s_testName, long l_nanoStart) {
        long lDuration = System.nanoTime() - l_nanoStart;
        System.out.println("Test " + s_testName + ": " + nf.format(lDuration) + " nanoseconds");
        return  lDuration;
    }

    public static final long outputGetABTestNanoDifference(long l_aDuration, long l_bDuration, String s_aTestName, String s_bTestName) {
        long lDiff = -1;
        double dPct = -1.0;
        String sFaster = null;
        if(l_aDuration > l_bDuration) {
            lDiff = l_aDuration - l_bDuration;
            dPct = 100.00 - (l_bDuration * 100.0 / l_aDuration + 0.5);
            sFaster = "B";
        }
        else {
            lDiff = l_bDuration - l_aDuration;
            dPct = 100.00 - (l_aDuration * 100.0 / l_bDuration + 0.5);
            sFaster = "A";
        }
        System.out.println(sFaster + " faster by " + nf.format(lDiff) + " nanoseconds (" + dPct + "% faster)");
        return  lDiff;
   }

   //Timer testing utilities...END

}