I am looking for an expert programmer to help solve a difficult situation.

The interviews so far have been surprisingly disappointing. The best candidate so far is a very experienced programmer who has never used version control software.

The problem in itself might not be too serious because it is something which can be learned in a short time.

But there is a deeper aspect, which worries me:

How is it possible to actively develop software for 10-15 years without ever needing version control?

Is the fact itself of not looking for a solution to the problem of tracking changes a sign of a wrong attitude to programming?

I worked for about 11 years in companies that didn't use source control. We managed (mostly by commenting changes and keeping code on a central server that could be recovered to any date). We never really asked whether there was a better way. That said, this was also in the days when I had the entire MSDN library in book form on my desk.

Yes, there was programming before the internet.

I struggle to see how you can spend 10+ years in the industry now without having run into source control. But, I would have some sympathy, I would believe it was possible and I wouldn't reject the candidate on that one detail alone. I would probe and find out how the candidate has managed this.

Alternatively, I might question whether my interview process was the problem. In what way was he the best candidate? Are there other modern programming techniques that he doesn't have that I'm just not asking the right questions for? If I were asking the right questions, would another candidate shine?

As a final note though, don't be afraid to reject all candidates if you have concerns. It is time consuming to start over, but it's more time-consuming to hire the wrong person.
