I guess I can't fault that if you're running a lifestyle business, but hiring programmers on the basis of how entertaining they are isn't really defensible on the basis of delivering results.

I think it really depends upon the business. I mean, a genuinely bad programmer, who doesn't merely fail to positively affect a codebase but actually manages to worsen it, will be bad in any programming business. However, many software shops just won't see the return on having a superstar. For instance, consider a shop writing Excel VSTO plug-ins: it's not wildly difficult work once you've done it a few times, but the work is time consuming, so it'd make more sense in that business to have good programmers who can work together and cover each others' backs than it would to have one brilliant programmer who annoys the rest of the team into leaving, or bores the rest of the team into losing what little enthusiasm they have for an already fairly boring niche of software development.

It may not make sense to choose personality over technical chops if you're trying to hire a language designer, but it may make sense to do so if you're in a niche which requires teamwork.

I wouldn't hire someone just because they're entertaining. But I might not hire someone otherwise qualified if they're not. And I'm not even in the habit of socializing with co-workers outside the job. But the job is enough hours with someone that I'd much prefer to enjoy their company.

I'm not sure why you keep assuming the best programmers are boring or unpleasant. I've found the opposite to be true, generally.

I assume nothing. I'm just pointing out that being "boring" or "entertaining" is completely irrelevant to whether someone is suited for a programming job, and that unless you're running a lifestyle business where enjoying your work day is more important than delivering results for your customers or getting paid, you're doing your company a disservice by hiring people based on these kinds of irrelevant characteristics.