Events should be verbs, not nouns.

nostr:nevent1qyd8wumn8ghj7urewfsk66ty9enxjct5dfskvtnrdakj7qgmwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8wetnw3jhymnzw33jucm0d5hszymhwden5te0danxvcmgv95kutnsw43z7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7tpvfkx2tn0wfnj7qgnwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxtcpr3mhxue69uhkx6rjd9ehgurfd3kzumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9uqzpfl84eat783hhc0ejtjahgfq6vjlzw8h8jcmxsetw6al8vpwydjx2f7llx

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Is this really your answer to my honest question, just a bravado?

I sent a real answer but it got lost. Reactions are more bandwidth intensive than revisions, so I don't think that applies. Event sourcing requires replaying lots of events, but that can be optimized without adulterating the data model (dvms maybe).

Thank you for your answer, but it was ineffective since I am also against reactions.

I liked this note

I liked this note.

I liked this note

I liked this note more.

Really? Or are you just trying to make a point?

I second that, that's how we design event-based systems in computer science like "event sourcing" databases, or git commits ("commit" is a verb) or commutative CRDTs (CmRDTs).

"Verbs not nouns" isn't bravado, it's a good design philosophy to have, a rule of thumb to check whether you're doing it right.

I think you didn't think about the problem for even a minute and you're just repeating some arcane academic knowledge that doesn't apply.