哪一个更容易读，取决于你的大脑如何工作。

你已经得到答案了。

这是个人喜好的问题。

我认为，字符串连接稍微快一些，但这应该可以忽略不计。

我想我们可以用MessageFormat。格式，因为它应该在可读性和性能方面都很好。

我使用了与Icaro在上面的回答中使用的相同的程序，并通过添加使用MessageFormat来解释性能数字的代码来增强它。

  public static void main(String[] args) {
    long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
    }
    long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = String.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s", i, +i * 2);
    }
    end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
      String s = MessageFormat.format("Hi %s; Hi to you %s", i, +i * 2);
    }
    end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    System.out.println("MessageFormat = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");
  }

串联= 69毫秒 格式= 1435毫秒 MessageFormat = 200毫秒

更新:

根据SonarLint报告，printf风格的格式字符串应该正确使用(squid:S3457)

Because printf-style format strings are interpreted at runtime, rather than validated by the compiler, they can contain errors that result in the wrong strings being created. This rule statically validates the correlation of printf-style format strings to their arguments when calling the format(...) methods of java.util.Formatter, java.lang.String, java.io.PrintStream, MessageFormat, and java.io.PrintWriter classes and the printf(...) methods of java.io.PrintStream or java.io.PrintWriter classes.

我用括号替换了printf样式，得到了一些有趣的结果，如下所示。

串联= 69毫秒格式= 1107毫秒 格式:括号= 416毫秒MessageFormat = 215 毫秒MessageFormat:括号= 2517毫秒

我的结论是: 如上所述，使用String。带尖括号的格式应该是一个很好的选择，以获得良好的可读性和性能。

我没有做任何具体的基准测试，但我认为连接可能更快。String.format()创建一个新的Formatter，该Formatter反过来创建一个新的StringBuilder(大小只有16个字符)。这是一个相当大的开销，特别是当您正在格式化一个较长的字符串并且StringBuilder必须不断调整大小时。

然而，串联不太有用，也更难阅读。一如既往，有必要对代码进行基准测试，看看哪个更好。在服务器应用程序中，当你的资源包、locale等加载到内存中，代码被jit后，这些差异可以忽略不计。

也许作为一个最佳实践，它将是一个好主意，创建自己的Formatter与适当大小的StringBuilder(可追加的)和地区，并使用它，如果你有很多格式化要做。

一般来说，字符串连接应该优先于string .format。后者有两个主要缺点:

它不以本地方式对要构建的字符串进行编码。 构建过程编码在字符串中。

第一点，我的意思是不可能理解String.format()调用在一次连续传递中所做的事情。人们被迫在格式字符串和参数之间来回切换，同时计算参数的位置。对于短连接，这不是什么大问题。但是，在这些情况下，字符串连接不那么详细。

第2点，我的意思是构建过程的重要部分编码在格式字符串中(使用DSL)。使用字符串表示代码有很多缺点。它本身不是类型安全的，并且使语法高亮显示、代码分析和优化等变得复杂。

当然，在使用Java语言之外的工具或框架时，可能会出现新的因素。

由于有关于性能的讨论，我想我应该添加一个包含StringBuilder的比较。事实上，它比concat更快，当然也比String更快。格式选项。

为了使这成为一种苹果对苹果的比较，我在循环中而不是在外部实例化了一个新的StringBuilder(这实际上比只实例化一个更快，这很可能是由于在一个构建器的末尾为循环追加重新分配空间的开销)。

    String formatString = "Hi %s; Hi to you %s";

    long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = String.format(formatString, i, +i * 2);
    }

    long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
    log.info("Format = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        String s = "Hi " + i + "; Hi to you " + i * 2;
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    log.info("Concatenation = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

    start = System.currentTimeMillis();

    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
        StringBuilder bldString = new StringBuilder("Hi ");
        bldString.append(i).append("; Hi to you ").append(i * 2);
    }

    end = System.currentTimeMillis();

    log.info("String Builder = " + ((end - start)) + " millisecond");

2012-01-11 16:30:46,058 INFO [TestMain] - Format = 1416毫秒 2012-01-11 16:30:46,190 INFO [TestMain] -连接= 134毫秒 2012-01-11 16:30:46,313 INFO [TestMain] - String Builder = 117毫秒

这是一个以毫秒为单位的多个样本大小的测试。

public class Time {

public static String sysFile = "/sys/class/camera/rear/rear_flash";
public static String cmdString = "echo %s > " + sysFile;

public static void main(String[] args) {

  int i = 1;
  for(int run=1; run <= 12; run++){
      for(int test =1; test <= 2 ; test++){
        System.out.println(
                String.format("\nTEST: %s, RUN: %s, Iterations: %s",run,test,i));
        test(run, i);
      }
      System.out.println("\n____________________________");
      i = i*3;
  }
}

public static void test(int run, int iterations){

      long start = System.nanoTime();
      for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
          String s = "echo " + i + " > "+ sysFile;
      }
      long t = System.nanoTime() - start;   
      String r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "Concatenation",t,"nanosecond");
      System.out.println(r) ;


     start = System.nanoTime();       
     for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
         String s =  String.format(cmdString, i);
     }
     t = System.nanoTime() - start; 
     r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "Format",t,"nanosecond");
     System.out.println(r);

      start = System.nanoTime();          
      for( int i=0;i<iterations; i++){
          StringBuilder b = new StringBuilder("echo ");
          b.append(i).append(" > ").append(sysFile);
          String s = b.toString();
      }
     t = System.nanoTime() - start; 
     r = String.format("  %-13s =%10d %s", "StringBuilder",t,"nanosecond");
     System.out.println(r);
}

}

TEST: 1, RUN: 1, Iterations: 1
  Concatenation =     14911 nanosecond
  Format        =     45026 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      3509 nanosecond

TEST: 1, RUN: 2, Iterations: 1
  Concatenation =      3509 nanosecond
  Format        =     38594 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      3509 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 2, RUN: 1, Iterations: 3
  Concatenation =      8479 nanosecond
  Format        =     94438 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      5263 nanosecond

TEST: 2, RUN: 2, Iterations: 3
  Concatenation =      4970 nanosecond
  Format        =     92976 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =      5848 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 3, RUN: 1, Iterations: 9
  Concatenation =     11403 nanosecond
  Format        =    287115 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     14326 nanosecond

TEST: 3, RUN: 2, Iterations: 9
  Concatenation =     12280 nanosecond
  Format        =    209051 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     11818 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 5, RUN: 1, Iterations: 81
  Concatenation =     54383 nanosecond
  Format        =   1503113 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     40056 nanosecond

TEST: 5, RUN: 2, Iterations: 81
  Concatenation =     44149 nanosecond
  Format        =   1264241 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     34208 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 6, RUN: 1, Iterations: 243
  Concatenation =     76018 nanosecond
  Format        =   3210891 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     76603 nanosecond

TEST: 6, RUN: 2, Iterations: 243
  Concatenation =     91222 nanosecond
  Format        =   2716773 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =     73972 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 8, RUN: 1, Iterations: 2187
  Concatenation =    527450 nanosecond
  Format        =  10291108 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =    885027 nanosecond

TEST: 8, RUN: 2, Iterations: 2187
  Concatenation =    526865 nanosecond
  Format        =   6294307 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =    591773 nanosecond

____________________________

TEST: 10, RUN: 1, Iterations: 19683
  Concatenation =   4592961 nanosecond
  Format        =  60114307 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =   2129387 nanosecond

TEST: 10, RUN: 2, Iterations: 19683
  Concatenation =   1850166 nanosecond
  Format        =  35940524 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =   1885544 nanosecond

  ____________________________

TEST: 12, RUN: 1, Iterations: 177147
  Concatenation =  26847286 nanosecond
  Format        = 126332877 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =  17578914 nanosecond

TEST: 12, RUN: 2, Iterations: 177147
  Concatenation =  24405056 nanosecond
  Format        = 129707207 nanosecond
  StringBuilder =  12253840 nanosecond