>This. Technical writing is a different species entirely. You know beforehand all of the pieces, or at least reason about them.

The advice to "don't edit while you write" usually comes after the advice to "make an outline" before you write. You are supposed to figure out how the pieces fit. Then quickly write it all out. Then edit edit edit.

The general idea is that is easier to edit afterwards than to edit on the fly. Its true for me.

My blog posts and course scripts aren't just documenting code.

I very rarely know what I'm going to write until I start writing. I don't even outline anything. I just start writing and relentlessly edit as I go.

I do the same thing for 1,000 word blog posts as I do with 400,000+ word course scripts.

If anything editing is more important for the larger pieces of work because in order to cleanly flow to the next lesson or section of a course the prior stuff has to be pretty much in its final form.

That's not what the parent comments are saying. The difference with technical writing isn't that you have a plan for what you're going to write. It's that you already have the domain knowledge that you're going to compile into prose. It's a communication process, rather than an invention process.

A good way to think of creative writing, if you're a technical writer, is to imagine attempting to write a textbook when you don't know the subject at all, and the "demand" from each new paragraph causes you to do the research necessary to acquire the knowledge necessary to write it.

How would you even structure a thing like that, in advance?

How would it ever attain a sensible shape if done a paragraph at a time, when something you learned while doing the research necessary to write paragraph 100 invalidates everything you wrote before it, or causes a complete restructuring of your mental model such that you realize the topic should be presented in an entirely different order? (And then you realize that again, and again, and again...)

A similar thing occurs in investigative journalism. How would you know how to present a story—know what story you're telling, really—before you know all the key facts? In est, before you've completed your investigation? You could certainly write notes about what you might write, but those have little to do with drafting the final story.

In short, how do you write a research paper? Do you write and perfect the abstract before you do the experiment?

I agree with all that. If something really isn't working and you just keep flinging words and other content onto the page, that's a pretty good recipe for having a lot of throwaway work. I don't usually polish drafts as I'm writing them unless I do so for something to do while I'm mulling where to take the piece.

I'm not really a big outline person either for either writing or presentations. I almost always have some idea where I'm going though it's not unusual for that to diverge.

Yet... it does go like this. Art is similar: You cannot simply change a watercolor that much in the middle of painting, for example, so if I have some surrealist scene in my head, I need to at least have the concept laid out before starting to paint. I can do this with acrylic to a point and to a lesser point, oils.

Same thing with writing. Yes, you are literally making things up and inventing new things, but that doesn't mean that one is writing freely and not needing to edit along the way. Outlines give framework, and editing gives time to reflect and plan things that might not have been planned in the beginning. I'm not saying that no one works this way - just sits and writes, or does freehand paintings (I do this last one, even with watercolor, and accept a certain failure rate) - but how one works doesn't really reflect on their creativity nor how their creativity works.

I would quote Frank O'Hara at this point, his poem "Why I Am Not A Painter" is a brilliant discussion of stimulus and revision across art forms.

What about writing (say) a masters or PhD thesis?

For many disciplines, the actual research involves field work, performing experiments, etc., and the thesis is primarily about reporting on that process and connecting it to the pre-existing body of research. For other disciplines (for example, philosophy), the text of the thesis is all there is to the research. Maybe the later is more like creative writing and the former more like technical writing??

(My uncle did a PhD in creative writing, his PhD thesis was a novel.)

Technical writing IS a different beast, and I do a lot of slow writing which involves lots of editing and reworking. That said, I sometimes feel like I should get more on the page first before doing the work to make sentences elegant and clear, or make the right nuanced point.