Yesterday someone called me for a reference check on a past coworker. After she'd asked me lots of detailed questions about this person's skill, technical knowledge, work style, and so on, she asked: "is [name] a superstar, or just very very good?". Ok, that's kind of a bizarre question, I think. I mean, it just begs for a definition of terms -- and, in fact, after I gave my answer, she asked me what I thought the key features are in a superstar. I gave her a few main points and this seemed to satisfy her, but I found myself thinking about it after the phone call was over.

I am a technical writer. Specifically, I write documentation for programmers. Most technical writers write documentation for end users, so "programming writers" are already kind of rare. (I know; I've tried to hire 'em. :-) ) And, within the set of people who claim this specialty, there are ones who "get it" and ones who don't. Ego aside, I think I'm personally an excellent programming writer, but it took me a while to get there. I have had the pleasure of working with a few other excellent programming writers over the years (including the subject of the phone call). So here are some of my thoughts on what makes a superior writer of this sort. Some of these apply to technical writers in general, but I'm really talking about the sub-species here.

( So, Monica, tell us what you really think. )