I am skeptical about this. I have never met an insider that could speak and write well that sanctions the overuse of jargon and the incomplete grammar of natural language.

That being said, I do see how it is possible to look at a broad sample of highly technical material, especially material that has been peer-reviewed, and begin with a descriptive assumption that whatever you find there is standard for this purpose.

I do often see texts generated by people that tend to treat indefinite and definite nouns as proper nouns. With proper nouns, there is no "a" or "the". And this holds true for animate and inanimate objects.

My understanding is the "English for Specific Purposes" is a category for developing pedagogies and curriculum for people focused on specific job tasks using the English language. The most obvious differentiation among these curricula would have to do with vocabulary, insider jargon, idioms, and sayings that are common to a specific field, but are not common enough generally to be encountered in a normal English-as-a-second-language course.

I could very well see a course being taught that addresses primarily how to decode existing technical texts that often break with certain conventions. But to take that a step further and advocate that repeating such errors is the proper way to generate such texts in the first place might be a bridge to far for me. That being said, the social and 'token' aspects of language can make difficult not to conform to the (bad) habits of a professional niche.

This problem is so common with in the legal community that many have given up hope for ever finding a solution. The "cover" that keeping with accepted poor habits provides for people with inadequate skills to properly fight against past practice is seemingly too much.

Quite frankly, the pedagogy for teaching the generation of technical writing at a high-level is to my knowledge almost completely non-existent, but whenever I do hear someone address this topic, it is always in a perfectly normative sense. Good technical English is good English, period.

I would be very interested, though, in hearing any kind of alternative view on this. It would be new to me and I would be very eager to understand it.