6 ms·

How does this differ from a Redux-type store besides being able to instantiate them on demand instead of having a global state? > It’s easy to screw up immutab

How does this differ from a Redux-type store besides being able to instantiate them on demand instead of having a global state? > It’s easy to screw up immutability in JavaScript, the actor internal state can be modified externally if users of the library are not extremely careful. Object.freeze() can help prevent this.

bsimpson 9y ago
I'd also have liked to see destructuring used to set the new state: return { ...state, count, } I realize that it's superfluous when count is the only property on state, but it makes the code both easier to understand and to maintain as state gains new properties over time.
- spraak 9y ago
  I've more often seen that called "property value shorthand", but it does compliment destructuring
  - bsimpson 9y ago
    I probably should have said spread. My inner monologue thinks of ... as destructuring, even though I intellectually know they are distinct.
abritinthebay 9y ago
It’s a pattern. It’s not supposed to be Redux/whatever library. It’s a pattern of writing code (like MVC, or Pub/Sub, etc) The Actor model strongly influenced protypical classes like Smalltalk and therefore also JS. It’s a 45 year old software design pattern so really it’s better to ask: how does Redux differ from the Actor pattern?
- kevmo314 9y ago
  Sure, that's fine too. My point is more that it would've been nice to get a summary of the differences instead of requiring the reader to dig through the article, since Redux is much more prevalent. Even after digging, I still can't tell if there is a difference. If there is none, it would've helped greatly to explicitly say this.
  - datashaman 9y ago
    There is a much larger world outside the tunnel created by React.js and its ilk.
  - boobsbr 9y ago
    The article is focused on explaining the design pattern, while Redux is influenced by the pattern. From my understanding, Redux shares the actor/messaging pattern when dispatching events to the reducers, but the state in Redux tends to be centralized (you usually have one main store, but you can create other stores if you want), while in the Actor pattern, each object has it's own state. Also, in Redux, information flows only in one direction: component => reducer => state. The Actor pattern seems to allow for actors to message each other back and forth.
    - kevmo314 9y ago
      Thanks for that explanation, that makes a lot of sense. See, if that had been included in the original article, I would've grasped it much more quickly, instead of being left wondering if Redux is implementing this pattern or I'm missing an obvious difference, and I'm sure it would've helped others too.
  - hex13 9y ago
    > since Redux is much more prevalent. Actually it's quite opposite. Redux is a library which was created not until 2 years ago and it is used only in JavaScript. Actor model and similar message-passing patterns are in use for decades and not only in JavaScript but in many programming languages. They are popular e.g. in game development for communicating between game objects. There is this weird viewpoint in JS community that world is turning around JS and its ecosystem, and this is the newest popular library that dictates standards rather than decades of CS knowledge ;)
hex13 9y ago
Redux is a chicken, actor model is an egg. Similar patterns were used decades before Redux was even born.

bsimpson 9y ago

I'd also have liked to see destructuring used to set the new state: return { ...state, count, } I realize that it's superfluous when count is the only property on state, but it makes the code both easier to understand and to maintain as state gains new properties over time.

spraak 9y ago
I've more often seen that called "property value shorthand", but it does compliment destructuring
- bsimpson 9y ago
  I probably should have said spread. My inner monologue thinks of ... as destructuring, even though I intellectually know they are distinct.

abritinthebay 9y ago

It’s a pattern. It’s not supposed to be Redux/whatever library. It’s a pattern of writing code (like MVC, or Pub/Sub, etc) The Actor model strongly influenced protypical classes like Smalltalk and therefore also JS. It’s a 45 year old software design pattern so really it’s better to ask: how does Redux differ from the Actor pattern?

kevmo314 9y ago
Sure, that's fine too. My point is more that it would've been nice to get a summary of the differences instead of requiring the reader to dig through the article, since Redux is much more prevalent. Even after digging, I still can't tell if there is a difference. If there is none, it would've helped greatly to explicitly say this.
- datashaman 9y ago
  There is a much larger world outside the tunnel created by React.js and its ilk.
- boobsbr 9y ago
  The article is focused on explaining the design pattern, while Redux is influenced by the pattern. From my understanding, Redux shares the actor/messaging pattern when dispatching events to the reducers, but the state in Redux tends to be centralized (you usually have one main store, but you can create other stores if you want), while in the Actor pattern, each object has it's own state. Also, in Redux, information flows only in one direction: component => reducer => state. The Actor pattern seems to allow for actors to message each other back and forth.
  - kevmo314 9y ago
    Thanks for that explanation, that makes a lot of sense. See, if that had been included in the original article, I would've grasped it much more quickly, instead of being left wondering if Redux is implementing this pattern or I'm missing an obvious difference, and I'm sure it would've helped others too.
- hex13 9y ago
  > since Redux is much more prevalent. Actually it's quite opposite. Redux is a library which was created not until 2 years ago and it is used only in JavaScript. Actor model and similar message-passing patterns are in use for decades and not only in JavaScript but in many programming languages. They are popular e.g. in game development for communicating between game objects. There is this weird viewpoint in JS community that world is turning around JS and its ecosystem, and this is the newest popular library that dictates standards rather than decades of CS knowledge ;)

hex13 9y ago

Redux is a chicken, actor model is an egg. Similar patterns were used decades before Redux was even born.