score:2

One of the main reasons is that constraining state changes to be done via actions allows you to treat all state changes as depending only on the action and previous state, which simplifies thinking about what is going on in each action. The architecture "traps" any kind of interaction with the "real world" into the action creator functions. Therefore, state changes can be treated as transactions.

In your Theoretical State Container, state changes can happen unpredictably at any time and activate all kinds of side effects, which would make them much harder to reason about, and bugs much harder to find. The Flux architecture forces state changes to be treated as a stream of discrete transactions.

Another reason is to constrain the data flow in the code to happen in only one direction. If we allow arbitrary unconstrained state modifications, we might get state changes causing more state changes causing more state changes... This is why it is an anti-pattern to dispatch actions in a reducer. We want to know where each action is coming from instead of creating cascades of actions.

Flux was created to solve a problem at Facebook: When some interface code was triggered, that could lead to a cascade of nearly unpredictable side-effects each causing each other. The Flux architecture makes this impossible by making every state transition a transaction and data flow one-directional.

But if the boilerplate needed in order to do this bothers you, you might be happy to know that your "Theoretical State Container" more or less exists, although it's a bit more complicated than your example. It's called MobX.

By the way, I think you're being a bit too optimistic with the whole "it's an implementation detail" thing. I think if you tried to actually implement time-travel debugging for your Theoretical State Container, what you would end up with would actually be pretty similar to Redux.


Related Query

More Query from same tag