How would you measure 'best' at coding? As I understand it, there are at least several different aspects that you could measure. One persons be the most effective algorithm designer, but another another the quickest at internalizeng large problems. It seems that one ould be the best in one way but not another and there could be no 'best' coder overall.

I certainly agree. And domain expertise comes into it too. Too much insulation from the domain can lead to a kind of inverse leaky abstraction problem - where not enough of what's real about the problem is affecting the design, which is too ivory-tower.

I've experienced this before -- a project designed by database coders to process data not naturally represented by a database metaphor.

I think the point to be taken is: Let go of the ego. It won't serve you well -- in fact, it will work against you.

Therefore, having concern of anyone being 'best' is simply a waste of time. Besides, 'best' is purely subjective, anyway. So, a pursuit of finding the 'best' is absurd, and wanting to consider one's self as 'best' is ego (or simply narcissism). It's also a sign of youth, and is to be expected.

Much more importantly than that, I feel, is that "living with it" is a good way to get complacent and not engage in constant self-improvement.

The opposite is also true, if you think that you are the best programmer in the world, why improve?

Because the second best programmer is right behind you!

But seriously, I would continue to improve out of dedication to the art, science, or craft (whichever you consider programming to truly be).

I agree with the other commenters that goodness-at-programming is a partial order, not a total one. However, your comment reminded me of something I remember PG saying in a talk once: "If there is a Michael Jordan of hacking, nobody knows who he is, not even he." I can't remember if he mentioned the obvious corollary, which is that it's pointless to worry about.

I personally took this to mean "Don't assume that you know everything, you could miss a learning opportunity."

But /statistically/ speaking, its not you.

For one moment in time.