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).

这取决于故障处理。如果你只是想跳过error元素，请尝试内部:

for(int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    String myString = ...;
    try {
        float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
        myFloats[i] = myNum;
    } catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
        --i;
    }
}

在任何其他情况下，我宁愿到外面去试试。代码更可读，更干净。如果返回null，在错误情况下抛出一个IllegalArgumentException可能会更好。

My perspective would be try/catch blocks are necessary to insure proper exception handling, but creating such blocks has performance implications. Since, Loops contain intensive repetitive computations, it is not recommended to put try/catch blocks inside loops. Additionally, it seems where this condition occurs, it is often "Exception" or "RuntimeException" which is caught. RuntimeException being caught in code should be avoided. Again, if if you work in a big company it's essential to log that exception properly, or stop runtime exception to happen. Whole point of this description is PLEASE AVOID USING TRY-CATCH BLOCKS IN LOOPS

为try/catch设置一个特殊的堆栈框架会增加额外的开销，但是JVM可能能够检测到您正在返回并优化它。

根据迭代次数的不同，性能差异可能可以忽略不计。

然而，我同意其他人的观点，把它放在循环之外会让循环体看起来更干净。

如果您希望继续处理，而不是在存在无效数字时退出，那么您将希望代码位于循环中。

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。

在你的例子中没有功能上的区别。我觉得你的第一个例子可读性更强。