Engineers on a spacecraft needing to know that at a certain temperature a material contracts which changes the friction coefficient it has and increases the heat generated until two moving parts melt, seems to have the same equivalence as knowing that at a certain rate of incoming messages your cache technology starts hitting a race condition where messages are double sent and now the downstream work is duplicated but not able to be correlated.
All of this is different from ambiguous wording in natural language, where the ambiguity might even be the intent.
Pedantic maybe, but it does reiterate the point that a software dev couldn’t design a spacecraft.
The OP's point was that both types of engineering are of similar complexity when contrasted to writing in a natural language
So the entire thread is unreasonable.
You can tell that he has caught on to a few aspects in terms of requiring editing and creativity and not being able to plan everything ahead. But really he doesn't understand the full extent of what programming involves. If he did he would definitely not carry the writer metaphor so far.
A writer's output is natural language. Natural languages and programming languages are extremely different things. Prose does not have strong and brittle constraints on syntax and semantics that computer code does. Prose does not create real systems with many moving parts that must align and synchronize precisely.
If you could get a creative writer to sit down and just design a new type of spacecraft engine by using his creative powers like a science fiction exercise, then the metaphor would work. But engineers have to make systems that are completely detailed, exacting, follow the laws of physics and harness them in intricate ways. Software engineers are often essentially doing research on new systems or new ways to combine systems.
If at all possible, get an experienced programmer to act as a manager for programmers. A programmer would not describe it as simply writing.