我用Node 4.0.0测试了JS，如果有人感兴趣的话。在循环外声明会导致~。平均超过1000次试验，每次试验1亿次循环，性能提高5毫秒。所以我要用最易读/可维护的方式来写，在我看来就是B。我本想把我的代码放在小提琴中，但我使用了现在性能的Node模块。代码如下:

var now = require("../node_modules/performance-now")

// declare vars inside loop
function varInside(){
    for(var i = 0; i < 100000000; i++){
        var temp = i;
        var temp2 = i + 1;
        var temp3 = i + 2;
    }
}

// declare vars outside loop
function varOutside(){
    var temp;
    var temp2;
    var temp3;
    for(var i = 0; i < 100000000; i++){
        temp = i
        temp2 = i + 1
        temp3 = i + 2
    }
}

// for computing average execution times
var insideAvg = 0;
var outsideAvg = 0;

// run varInside a million times and average execution times
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
    var start = now()
    varInside()
    var end = now()
    insideAvg = (insideAvg + (end-start)) / 2
}

// run varOutside a million times and average execution times
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
    var start = now()
    varOutside()
    var end = now()
    outsideAvg = (outsideAvg + (end-start)) / 2
}

console.log('declared inside loop', insideAvg)
console.log('declared outside loop', outsideAvg)

我总是使用A(而不是依赖于编译器)，也可能重写为:

for(int i=0, double intermediateResult=0; i<1000; i++){
    intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

这仍然将intermediateResult限制在循环的范围内，但不会在每次迭代期间重新声明。

以下是我在。net中编写和编译的内容。

double r0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    r0 = i*i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}

for (int j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
    double r1 = j*j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

这是我从。net Reflector中得到的，当CIL被渲染回代码时。

for (int i = 0; i < 0x3e8; i++)
{
    double r0 = i * i;
    Console.WriteLine(r0);
}
for (int j = 0; j < 0x3e8; j++)
{
    double r1 = j * j;
    Console.WriteLine(r1);
}

So both look exactly same after compilation. In managed languages code is converted into CL/byte code and at time of execution it's converted into machine language. So in machine language a double may not even be created on the stack. It may just be a register as code reflect that it is a temporary variable for WriteLine function. There are a whole set optimization rules just for loops. So the average guy shouldn't be worried about it, especially in managed languages. There are cases when you can optimize manage code, for example, if you have to concatenate a large number of strings using just string a; a+=anotherstring[i] vs using StringBuilder. There is very big difference in performance between both. There are a lot of such cases where the compiler cannot optimize your code, because it cannot figure out what is intended in a bigger scope. But it can pretty much optimize basic things for you.

很长一段时间我都有同样的问题。所以我测试了一段更简单的代码。

结论:对于此类病例，两组间无显著性差异。

外环箱

int intermediateResult;
for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    intermediateResult = i+2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

内环箱

for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    int intermediateResult = i+2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

我检查了IntelliJ的反编译器上的编译文件，对于这两种情况，我得到了相同的Test.class

for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
    int intermediateResult = i + 2;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

我还使用这个答案中给出的方法对这两种情况的代码进行了反汇编。我将只展示与答案相关的部分

外环箱

Code:
  stack=2, locals=3, args_size=1
     0: iconst_0
     1: istore_2
     2: iload_2
     3: sipush        1000
     6: if_icmpge     26
     9: iload_2
    10: iconst_2
    11: iadd
    12: istore_1
    13: getstatic     #2                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
    16: iload_1
    17: invokevirtual #3                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(I)V
    20: iinc          2, 1
    23: goto          2
    26: return
LocalVariableTable:
        Start  Length  Slot  Name   Signature
           13      13     1 intermediateResult   I
            2      24     2     i   I
            0      27     0  args   [Ljava/lang/String;

内环箱

Code:
      stack=2, locals=3, args_size=1
         0: iconst_0
         1: istore_1
         2: iload_1
         3: sipush        1000
         6: if_icmpge     26
         9: iload_1
        10: iconst_2
        11: iadd
        12: istore_2
        13: getstatic     #2                  // Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
        16: iload_2
        17: invokevirtual #3                  // Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(I)V
        20: iinc          1, 1
        23: goto          2
        26: return
      LocalVariableTable:
        Start  Length  Slot  Name   Signature
           13       7     2 intermediateResult   I
            2      24     1     i   I
            0      27     0  args   [Ljava/lang/String;

如果您仔细注意，在LocalVariableTable中，只有分配给i和intermediateResult的Slot会根据它们的出现顺序进行交换。slot中的相同差异也反映在其他代码行中。

当前无额外操作 在这两种情况下，intermediateResult仍然是一个局部变量，因此访问时间没有差异。

奖金

编译器做了大量的优化，看看在这种情况下发生了什么。

零工作情况

for(int i=0; i < 1000; i++){
    int intermediateResult = i;
    System.out.println(intermediateResult);
}

零工作反编译

for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
    System.out.println(i);
}

哪个更好，a还是b?

从性能的角度来看，你必须衡量它。(在我看来，如果你能测量到差异，编译器不是很好)。

从维护的角度来看，b更好。在同一个地方声明和初始化变量，在尽可能窄的范围内。不要在声明和初始化之间留下空隙，不要污染不需要的名称空间。

我认为这取决于编译器，很难给出一个一般的答案。