2018年年中，一个新的react/redux采用者从(几年的)ExtJS迁移过来:

在redux学习曲线向下滑动之后，我有同样的问题，并认为纯通量会像OP一样更简单。

我很快就看到了redux对flux的好处，就像上面的答案中提到的那样，并将其应用到我的第一个应用程序中。

在再次掌握锅炉板的同时，我尝试了其他一些国家管理libs，我发现最好的是rematch。

它比普通的redux更直观，它减少了90%的样板文件，减少了我花在redux上的75%的时间(我认为一个库应该这样做)，我能够让几个企业应用立即运行起来。

它还使用相同的redux工具运行。这是一篇很好的文章，涵盖了一些好处。

因此，对于任何其他到达这篇So帖子搜索“更简单的redux”的人，我建议尝试它作为一个简单的redux的替代品，它具有所有的好处和1/4的模板。

我用Flux工作了很长时间，现在用Redux工作了很长时间。正如Dan指出的那样，这两种架构并没有太大的不同。Redux让事情变得更简单、更清晰。它在Flux的基础上教给你一些东西。比如Flux就是一个单向数据流的完美例子。关注点分离，数据、操作和视图层分离。在Redux中，我们有同样的东西，但我们也学习了不变性和纯函数。

在Quora上，有人说:

首先，完全可以不用React编写应用程序 通量。

另外，我创建了这个可视化图表来快速展示两者的视图，可能是对那些不想阅读整个解释的人的快速回答:

但如果你仍然有兴趣了解更多，请继续阅读。

我相信你应该从纯React开始，然后学习Redux和Flux。 在你有一些React的实际经验之后，你会看到 Redux是否对你有帮助 也许你会觉得Redux完全适合你的应用，也可能适合你自己 会发现Redux在试图解决一个你没有的问题 真正的体验。 如果直接从Redux开始，可能会以过度设计告终 代码，更难维护的代码，甚至有更多的错误 回来的。

Redux文档:

Motivation As the requirements for JavaScript single-page applications have become increasingly complicated, our code must manage more state than ever before. This state can include server responses and cached data, as well as locally created data that has not yet been persisted to the server. UI state is also increasing in complexity, as we need to manage active routes, selected tabs, spinners, pagination controls, and so on. Managing this ever-changing state is hard. If a model can update another model, then a view can update a model, which updates another model, and this, in turn, might cause another view to update. At some point, you no longer understand what happens in your app as you have lost control over the when, why, and how of its state. When a system is opaque and non-deterministic, it's hard to reproduce bugs or add new features. As if this wasn't bad enough, consider the new requirements becoming common in front-end product development. As developers, we are expected to handle optimistic updates, server-side rendering, fetching data before performing route transitions, and so on. We find ourselves trying to manage a complexity that we have never had to deal with before, and we inevitably ask the question: Is it time to give up? The answer is No. This complexity is difficult to handle as we're mixing two concepts that are very hard for the human mind to reason about: mutation and asynchronicity. I call them Mentos and Coke. Both can be great when separated, but together they create a mess. Libraries like React attempt to solve this problem in the view layer by removing both asynchrony and direct DOM manipulation. However, managing the state of your data is left up to you. This is where Redux comes in. Following in the footsteps of Flux, CQRS, and Event Sourcing, Redux attempts to make state mutations predictable by imposing certain restrictions on how and when updates can happen. These restrictions are reflected in the three principles of Redux.

同样来自Redux文档:

Core Concepts Redux itself is very simple. Imagine your app's state is described as a plain object. For example, the state of a todo app might look like this: { todos: [{ text: 'Eat food', completed: true }, { text: 'Exercise', completed: false }], visibilityFilter: 'SHOW_COMPLETED' } This object is like a "model" except that there are no setters. This is so that different parts of the code can’t change the state arbitrarily, causing hard-to-reproduce bugs. To change something in the state, you need to dispatch an action. An action is a plain JavaScript object (notice how we don't introduce any magic?) that describes what happened. Here are a few example actions: { type: 'ADD_TODO', text: 'Go to swimming pool' } { type: 'TOGGLE_TODO', index: 1 } { type: 'SET_VISIBILITY_FILTER', filter: 'SHOW_ALL' } Enforcing that every change is described as an action lets us have a clear understanding of what’s going on in the app. If something changed, we know why it changed. Actions are like breadcrumbs of what has happened. Finally, to tie state and actions together, we write a function called a reducer. Again, nothing magic about it — it's just a function that takes state and action as arguments, and returns the next state of the app. It would be hard to write such a function for a big app, so we write smaller functions managing parts of the state: function visibilityFilter(state = 'SHOW_ALL', action) { if (action.type === 'SET_VISIBILITY_FILTER') { return action.filter; } else { return state; } } function todos(state = [], action) { switch (action.type) { case 'ADD_TODO': return state.concat([{ text: action.text, completed: false }]); case 'TOGGLE_TODO': return state.map((todo, index) => action.index === index ? { text: todo.text, completed: !todo.completed } : todo ) default: return state; } } And we write another reducer that manages the complete state of our app by calling those two reducers for the corresponding state keys: function todoApp(state = {}, action) { return { todos: todos(state.todos, action), visibilityFilter: visibilityFilter(state.visibilityFilter, action) }; } This is basically the whole idea of Redux. Note that we haven't used any Redux APIs. It comes with a few utilities to facilitate this pattern, but the main idea is that you describe how your state is updated over time in response to action objects, and 90% of the code you write is just plain JavaScript, with no use of Redux itself, its APIs, or any magic.

我是一个早期的采用者，并使用Facebook Flux库实现了一个中等大小的单页面应用程序。

虽然我有点晚了，但我要指出的是，尽管我寄予了最大的希望，但Facebook似乎认为他们的Flux实现是一个概念的证明，它从未得到应有的关注。

我鼓励您使用它，因为它揭示了Flux架构的更多内部工作原理，这非常有教育意义，但与此同时，它没有提供像Redux这样的库所提供的许多好处(这些好处对于小型项目并不那么重要，但对于大型项目非常有价值)。

我们已经决定继续前进，我们将移动到Redux，我建议你也这样做;)

根据这篇文章: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/a-realworld-comparison-of-front-end-frameworks-with-benchmarks-2019-update-4be0d3c78075

你最好使用MobX来管理应用中的数据以获得更好的性能，而不是Redux。

这是Redux / Flux的简单解释。 Redux没有分派器。它依赖于称为约简的纯函数。它不需要调度程序。每个操作由一个或多个简化器处理，以更新单个存储。由于数据是不可变的，reducers返回一个新的更新状态来更新存储

更多信息Flux vs Redux