Writing is hard, no matter how you frame it. There a native English speakers who may have an advantage because they can produce clever phrasing more easily. But I found that actual content (e.g. having to say something that matters) always beats clever phrasing, albeit you need a bit of both.
As a non-native English speaker, I usually require about 8 months straight (4hrs/day) to produce a full paper with ~8000 words. Note that this is after all research is done and all results are already available. It is a multi-iteration process. It is also critical that I accept not keeping parts for just an end in itself (e.g. not throwing away text that took time to produce): If it does not support the main message of the paper, it gets removed eventually. Clinging to text was my biggest mistake as a beginner because it effectively prevented succinct synthesis (btw. this is mentioned in the blog post, too). Having mentors that point to redundant text helps.
Sometimes I feel that (proficient) non-native speakers are actually better because they tend to describe things plainly, directly, and clearly, without trying to be all clever about it.
Even in technical (non-fiction) writing there are different styles, and when in doubt it should really be clarity that wins. Especially in documentation and such.
I do notice that in my native language it's a bit easier to make a serious point while also writing in a somewhat entertaining style, but that's really just extra fluff. Like you say, at the end of the day people don't read what you have to say for your style, but for your content.
> It is also critical that I accept not keeping parts for just an end in itself (e.g. not throwing away text that took time to produce): If it does not support the main message of the paper, it gets removed eventually.
I copy/paste these things to a draft document for some future usage, where it's more appropriate. This way you're not "throwing it away" but just "re-organizing it".
As a non-native English speaker, I usually require about 8 months straight (4hrs/day) to produce a full paper with ~8000 words. Note that this is after all research is done and all results are already available. It is a multi-iteration process. It is also critical that I accept not keeping parts for just an end in itself (e.g. not throwing away text that took time to produce): If it does not support the main message of the paper, it gets removed eventually. Clinging to text was my biggest mistake as a beginner because it effectively prevented succinct synthesis (btw. this is mentioned in the blog post, too). Having mentors that point to redundant text helps.