Why writing and programming are fundamentally different

A lot of people spend time writing stuff on their computers. What and how they write depends almost entirely upon what their goal is first, and their personal manner of going about things second.
Take this blog. My goal is mainly to express various essays that are bubbling and steaming in my head and are just begging to become a little more concrete, and a little less elusive. Perhaps help me cut the crap from the cake with a little bit of written analysis afterwards. My goal is not, on the other hand, to explicitly to argue why I believe all my presumptions to be true.
Since my readership is likely to be exceptionally limited, I'm fully expecting it'll only be me, it seems like I would per default agree with my own presumptions if they're worth agreeing with.

As such, you'll see a focus on presenting an idea in a manner which seems to be sorta correct to me at the time of writing, but also which does not get lost in too many trivialities; and one which does not make being right a more important property than being written.

So various writers write for various reasons; programmers want to be absolutely precise, and absolutely correct. Of course, that is not enough, but those two are preconditions for writing working programs.

Writing political arguments is different; there, the goal is to be convincing. Being precise is not important, but always being right, at least in the eyes and ears of your followers, is very important. It is no suprise, then, that programmers aren't terribly interested in popular politics - the lack of finesse and precision, in favour of vague omnicorrectness, can be particularly jarring when you're used to dealing with absolutes and total precision. To a certain degree, this makes perfect sense - it is very hard to get someone to like you if they don't agree with you on things you purport to be of the utmost importance.

Writers who focus on a whole lot more than being right. Certainly, what they write must make sense, but they attempt to invoke much more varied responses than agreement or disagreement. As such, they employ language for a completely different reason than that of programmers - who are attempting to achieve something very specific. And different from politicians - who are attempting to be correct while saying something you agree with.
All because a writers goal is completely different. Certainly, the goal may be fairly specific, so it is akin to what a programmer does - but the writer does not have the option of being entirely precise. And certainly, he wants the reader to accept what he writes rather than reject it - but then, the writer does not need to prove that it is right, just that it isn't wrong granted fair suspension of disbelief.

Any writer who does not realize that making factual arguments, or attempting precision or correctness is not the focus of the discipline is, as such, doomed to fail. It's supposed to be about the story, stupid.