Proposal: Rename "stores" to "reducers"

[acdlite]

If I remember correctly, @gaearon, you said we'd make this change once Redux hit 500 stars. :)

It would also be nice to have a "Terminology" section of the docs so we can keep everyone on track. I've especially noticed that we currently use the word "dispatcher" to refer to at least three different things.

[goatslacker]

-1 the learning curve on this repo already feels steep. Let's not make it any steeper by introducing new terminology for new flux users.

Internally they can be called reducers, publicly keep them as stores so it's easier to grok.

[acdlite]

I honestly think it's more confusing the way it is now. Totally anecdotal, but I've had several people IRL get all messed up thinking about how a "store" could be stateless.

The main characteristics of "stores" in traditional Flux are that they 1) hold state, and 2) emit change events. Neither of which are true in Redux.

[emmenko]

I agree we need to clarify the terminology, and in some cases find better naming.
I think as a first step there should be some JSDoc, then a terminology section would also help.
In general we have to maintain a certain level of consistency.

[gaearon]

I wonder if there's a term that doesn't sound FP-ish but is not a “store” either.
Domains?

[gaearon]

OTOH it's already called Redux so at least “reducer” sounds related.

[leoasis]

How about "step updates", or "steppers", which moves your state one step forward. I've seen this being used in Elm literature, having a function called step, update, or next

[goatslacker]

Domains contain node.js baggage.

They're not stores in how they function but you still put your state logic in there much like flux stores. They're state managers, like flux stores are supposed to be.

Reducers is fine if you're keen on changing its name though.

[acdlite]

Especially because "reducer" is a precise description of what they actually are :)

[gaearon]

Updaters? Sounds descriptive + less snobbish than reducers.

[emmenko]

I like reducer as well

[acdlite]

I guess I don't see why "reducer" is snobbish. Isn't it better to use the actual term than invent a new one that is less descriptive?

[leoasis]

I guess both may be valid, and it depends from which point of view you see it: a reducer of actions (into state), or an updater of state.

[acdlite]

"Updater" implies that its mutative. "Reducer" makes it clear that you're returning a new state, not modifying the old one.

[leoasis]

That's a strong point in favor I think, may help with the issue about redux not working correctly with mutations

[acdlite]

I do appreciate the need to keep Redux friendly to people who aren't familiar with FP, but we can solve that with better documentation. I like the current docs, but on first glance they're a bit overwhelming. A good docs site that foregrounds the familiar stuff (action creators, reducer logic) over the advanced stuff (middleware, hot reloading) would be very helpful.

And yet, judging from the rapid growth of the following here, we must be doing something right :)