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.
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 ;)
I never said Redux dictated the standard, I simply asked for the differences, and if it weren't for boobsbr's response, I'd be stuck in a state where I don't know how close Redux was to this model which is quite important to get context and understanding.
> 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 ;)
If you criticize people like this for not knowing what came first, then it's no wonder people feel like that because you'd never give them the opportunity to learn about the lineages. Instead, people will simply think "oh this looks like an interesting paradigm, maybe I'll consider using it in my next project" without realizing that they're already using it.
One of differences could be that Redux has only one object("actor") which can receive messages - that's store.
In actor model there are many actors which can both receive and send messages.