Is the word "all" implied by this question?

The absence of a qualifier like "most", "many", or "some" leaves the statement open to (mis)interpretation. Strictly speaking you are correct (and that would be my first reaction too); saying "programmers do _" is the same, syntactically, as saying that "computers emit heat" or "dogs chase cats" or "toddlers throw tantrums" -- in all cases there are exceptions, but the statement describes the normative case.

It's a bad idea to generalize about behaviors, so the original speaker should have added a qualifier.

It's a generalization of programmers, and generalizations are never completely accurate if taken literally.

I (and I would imagine most native English speakers) interpret a plural without a qualifier, by default, as having the implied qualifier 'all'. I see news organizations like the BBC do this all the time. 'Doctors say that fruit cures rabies' (when a group of 10 doctors had the finding from a study), 'Police want new powers to ban baseball bats' (when a small group of hardline police officers do), etc. It's an unfortunately poor style of writing that I think has penetrated increasingly into modern usage, often for the reason of brevity.

So it is technically ambiguous, but I would always lean towards the implied qualifier, 'all'. 'All programmers...'