Considering it's the basis behind science and pretty much all analytical thought, can we please stop pretending making generalizations (yes, even big ones) is a bad thing? This generalization was interesting and contains a large degree of truth; if you'd like to disagree with that, or explain where the generalization falls down, do so.
The basis of analytical thought is testable predictions.
Counterexample to "Programmers don't like to code" :
I am a programmer, sometimes I like to code.
Sometimes I like to code in C. I like to implement some basic objects, like a list, a stack, some math routines. It is a like a little zen garden. So it isn't anything impressive, it's just like some rocks and sand, but I arrange it in a certain way and I like it.
Maybe I should address the content rather than the title (although if the title fails to represent the content it is a poor title.)
"Programmers like problem solving" is the kind of vague positive statement that is pointless and devoid of content. Here is a problem I don't like to solve: configuring Apache . . . yawn.
When you talk about likes and dislikes, generalisations do really fall down. For example I have indeed seen code rewritten from scratch because the programmer did not want to spend the mental effort to understand it and liked doing their own thing. I have also seen code re-written from scratch under the greatest reluctance because the original code was so broken.
Generalisations are all very well when they have something to teach us. In the article's case neither the thesis nor the counter-thesis seem particularly illuminating to me.
... can we plz stop making big generalizations? Different people like different things.
Programmers are not all alike.