I read the Reactive Manifesto .
But I could not understand the core differences between event driven architectures and message driven architectures. And as a result, I also could not understand the exact reason behind why the reactive manifesto prefers Message Driven systems instead of the Event Driven one.
I also had a look at this interview, where Martin Thompson discusses the reactive manifesto.
But still, I could not clearly distinguish between these two architectures, their advantages and use cases.
Without sharing the view, I try to explain the claim:
An event implies a certain semantic, while a message is more about syntax. Thus a message may contain an event, but also something else (e.g., an error statement).
By focusing on the mechanism message, a better decoupling can be gained, since the semantic can be re-interpreted.