It depends.
For an open dinghy like Arne’s design I think a table of offsets should be provided and I agree with Annie who wrote “Some people may want to do everything themselves - I certainly would”. There is something good about turning a table of numbers into a set of hull sections (all by one’s self!), setting up some frames, seeing its shape for the first time, and basking for a moment or two in the self-delusion that the job is already half done. There is joy in it. (A professional has little time for that, the motive being to get the job done as efficiently as possible and usually in the least labour-intensive manner. Skill and quality of result doesn’t come into the discussion - one expects that from a professional as a matter of course).
On the other hand, I must also confess to a moment of epiphany while making the scale model of David’s “Sibling Tender”. It took me by surprise really, after struggling a little trying to slot together the little bits and pieces of plywood that came from tracing a computer printout – suddenly to find a self-jigged dinghy already “in the stocks”, with side bulkheads, side seats and other parts of the floatation chambers already done!
Suddenly - you have to do it to experience it - one sees the point in it. (And if you have ever done it, retro-fitting buoyancy tanks is a no fun at all). This rather more sophisticated design would be very tiresome to make if one had to loft not only the sections, but also the fore-and-aft panels which make the complete kitset. And as a bonus, the planking itself can also be cut fairly accurately and fitted, rather than the time-honoured amateur way of slapping a roughly shaped piece of plywood over the frame and then whittling it down to fit. This is especially so in the case of multi-chine dinghies, and for all I know, could probably even extend to the making of planks for a clinker dinghy (at least, a modern plywood one, but I have never built one of these.)
My conclusion, from building a model of each of the dinghy design contestants, is that the simple open dinghies, especially those built over frames and chine logs, are just as well made from a table of offsets. More sophisticated designs (multi-chine and those with built-in buoyancy) are probably better designed from and built from CAD. It should also be recognised, and David has hinted at it – us oldies need to try harder to see things through the eyes of the next generation. My kids and grand kids all grew up with kitset toys and kitset model animals etc that slot together, and can tear apart a package of kitset pieces and have it built in minutes without bothering to read the instructions. They are used to this paradigm, expect it, and generally in more of a hurry to get things done than I am these days.
[Speaking of which: I should be outside doing other things, but I can't help inserting this one about Donald Trump who, some time in the recent past, felt the need to demonstrate his intelligence, and decided to do so by referring to one of these kitsets. Proudly announced that he was able to assemble one in just a little over six weeks, when the writing on the box said "suitable for four years"]
I can’t see anything wrong with Arne’s suggestion that CAD plans should provide offsets as well, for those that want them. For open dinghies built over frames and traditional chine logs, offsets are all you need. For more sophisticated plywood shapes, and for self-jigging and self-fitting of buoyancy chambers – and for dinghies which have only planking (no frames or chine logs and held together by epoxy fillets) – CAD makes more sense here. Some people might enjoy to take the time to loft them - I not so sure that I would.
(Regarding the dinghy design competition, and the use of computer print-outs in the building process – I don’t want to get dragged into any controversy about winners and losers but I must make the observation that full size printers are not as commonly available down on a beach front, as a pencil and ruler. (“think along the lines of building on a beach when the inflatable gives up the ghost unexpectedly…”
As a matter of fact, Slieve’s KISS concept didn’t even need offsets, and I can’t remember about Boxer now, but it could easily have been built without offsets too, same with the box boat models, they certainly don’t need full size drawings).
So, its horses for courses again isn’t it?
PS I must add - good luck to Karl A. (who is an accomplished dinghy builder as I see from his blog) - looking forward to a report and some photos on the building of David's CAD designed 3-plank tender.