Differences in opinion on "trivial" details of a job can often lead to conflict or disputes over more complicated matters, so it makes sense to cover the basics in an interview and ensure compatibility.
Plus, starting with "easy" questions allows you to evaluate the candidate's communication, thoughtfulness, and overall fit for your team, with no pressure on the actual content of the response. "How do they frame up their answer?" is just as important as "what is the content of their answer?" in many jobs. So - again - it's perfectly legitimate to start with the basics.
A candidate becoming "insulted" during an interview and walking out seems like a clear sign that they are a bad fit culturally for your workplace. Moreso, because you (apparently) weren't able to get to the more advanced questions, you were presumably left without being able to fully evaluate the candidates skills. This leaves us with a very clear answer to your question of, "would you hire him?" of "no".
Further - in a comment you mention that another company hired him and that company considers him a great programmer. To be honest, I don't see how that holds any weight - firstly, I'm guessing you don't have a solid idea on what their criteria are for "a great programmer." secondly, as alluded to above, even in programming jobs, cultural/team fit, communication, and general approach to challenges (like being asked "insulting" questions in an interview) are often just as important as actual skill.
Finally - since the candidate walked out of your interview I don't see what the real value of this question is. It seems clear that they are rejecting you regardless of what you think about them. I don't think there's any precedent for an employer to offer a job to someone who walked out of an interview.