Main Article Content
The use of CAD in architectural practice and education has drawn fierce criticism in recent years, according to literature. The mental efficacy of modern students in institutions and, primarily, practicing architects was thought to be negatively impacted. Contrary to the prevalent practice of using Computer-Aided Design (CAD) in the design process, the earlier method of drafting was positioned favorably. This study is a moralist polemicist against broad generalizations like that. Before proposing a curative remedy, it aims to assess the viability of the goals of previous literature. In that respect, the objective goal of this study is to analyze and contrast quantitatively the advantages and drawbacks of using computer-aided design (CAD) vs conventional approaches in architectural practice and education. Secondarily, it seeks to vehemently amplify whether computer-aided design (CAD) use should be continued or discontinued based on an analysis of identified CAD users. Therefore, a variety of interdependent schemata were developed to organize the scope's boundaries in order to achieve the full phenomena of this expansive aim. The methodology sold follows the quantitative paradigm. From the viewpoint of experts, secondary data for the theoretical framework was gathered through databases, books, and journals.