As long as you are aware of what you need to accomplish in the loop you could put the try catch outside the loop. But it is important to understand that the loop will then end as soon as the exception occurs and that may not always be what you want. This is actually a very common error in Java based software. People need to process a number of items, such as emptying a queue, and falsely rely on an outer try/catch statement handling all possible exceptions. They could also be handling only a specific exception inside the loop and not expect any other exception to occur. Then if an exception occurs that is not handled inside the loop then the loop will be "preemted", it ends possibly prematurely and the outer catch statement handles the exception.

如果循环在生活中扮演清空队列的角色，那么循环很可能在队列真正清空之前就结束了。非常常见的错误。

我把0.02美元放进去。有时，您需要在稍后的代码中添加“finally”(因为谁会在第一次就写出完美的代码呢?)在这些情况下，将try/catch放在循环之外突然变得更有意义了。例如:

try {
    for(int i = 0; i < max; i++) {
        String myString = ...;
        float myNum = Float.parseFloat(myString);
        dbConnection.update("MY_FLOATS","INDEX",i,"VALUE",myNum);
    }
} catch (NumberFormatException ex) {
    return null;
} finally {
    dbConnection.release();  // Always release DB connection, even if transaction fails.
}

因为如果出现错误，您只希望释放一次数据库连接(或选择您最喜欢的其他资源类型……)。

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。

如果你想在每个迭代中捕获Exception，或者检查哪个迭代抛出了Exception，并捕获迭代中的每个Exception，放置try…在循环内捕获。如果发生异常，这将不会中断循环，并且您可以在整个循环的每次迭代中捕获每个异常。

如果你想打破循环并在抛出异常时检查异常，请使用try…从循环中捕获。这将打破循环并在catch(如果有的话)之后执行语句。

这完全取决于你的需要。我更喜欢用try…如果Exception发生，结果不会有歧义，并且循环不会中断并完全执行。

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.

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