No, this is not the message from the article. Perhaps, it is what the message should be, or what the author wanted it to be, but it is not what was said. Just

No, this is not the message from the article. Perhaps, it is what the message should be, or what the author wanted it to be, but it is not what was said. Just reread the first sentences. I quote: You have a nice big project you’re about to get started on. Delivery is in a few months, so you have time to plan, sketch out some initial ideas, to let it germinate in your head. Right? No. Start now. He is saying that you don't plan. You don't have time to let it "germinate in your head". Don't look for the hard parts of the problem and tackle them first because, if the problem is nontrivial, you probably don't know what the hard parts are, anyway. The hard parts are the ones you don't expect from the start. The author's thesis is that you should start early so that you can encounter the hard parts as soon as possible. It is about the fact that you will encounter unexpected challenges that will force you to reassess your strategy. I'm not taking a stand one way or another. I think your strategy has its place (and in fact, is closer to the way I tend to do things) as well as the author's.