I Tested DeepSeek’s R1 and V3 Coding Skills – and we’re not All Doomed (Yet).

DeepSeek exploded into the world’s awareness this past weekend. It stands apart for three powerful factors:

1. It’s an AI chatbot from China, rather than the US

2. It’s open source.

3. It utilizes vastly less facilities than the big AI tools we have actually been taking a look at.

Also: Apple scientists expose the secret sauce behind DeepSeek AI

Given the US government’s concerns over TikTok and possible Chinese government involvement because code, a brand-new AI emerging from China is bound to create attention. ZDNET’s Radhika Rajkumar did a deep dive into those concerns in her article Why China’s DeepSeek could break our AI bubble.

In this short article, we’re avoiding politics. Instead, I’m putting both DeepSeek V3 and DeekSeek R1 through the very same set of AI coding tests I have actually thrown at 10 other big language designs. According to DeepSeek itself:

Choose V3 for jobs needing depth and accuracy (e.g., resolving advanced math problems, creating complicated code).

Choose R1 for latency-sensitive, high-volume applications (e.g., client assistance automation, basic text processing).

You can choose in between R1 and V3 by clicking the little button in the chat user interface. If the button is blue, you’re utilizing R1.

The short response is this: impressive, but plainly not perfect. Let’s dig in.

Test 1: Writing a WordPress plugin

This test was really my very first test of ChatGPT’s programs expertise, way back in the day. My partner required a plugin for WordPress that would assist her run a participation device for her online group.

Also: The finest AI for coding in 2025 (and what not to utilize)

Her requirements were fairly simple. It required to take in a list of names, one name per line. It then had to arrange the names, and if there were replicate names, different them so they weren’t noted side-by-side.

I didn’t actually have time to code it for her, so I chose to give the AI the difficulty on an impulse. To my huge surprise, it worked.

Ever since, it’s been my first test for AIs when evaluating their programming abilities. It requires the AI to understand how to establish code for the WordPress framework and follow triggers clearly enough to create both the interface and program logic.

Only about half of the AIs I have actually checked can totally pass this test. Now, however, we can include one more to the winner’s circle.

DeepSeek V3 developed both the interface and program reasoning precisely as defined. When It Comes To DeepSeek R1, well that’s an interesting case. The “thinking” aspect of R1 caused the AI to spit out 4502 words of analysis before sharing the code.

The UI looked various, with much broader input locations. However, both the UI and reasoning worked, so R1 also passes this test.

Up until now, DeepSeek V3 and R1 both passed one of 4 tests.

Test 2: Rewriting a string function

A user grumbled that he was unable to enter dollars and cents into a contribution entry field. As composed, my code only allowed dollars. So, the test includes providing the AI the routine that I wrote and asking it to reword it to allow for both dollars and cents

Also: My favorite ChatGPT function simply got method more effective

Usually, this leads to the AI producing some regular expression recognition code. DeepSeek did generate code that works, although there is space for enhancement. The code that DeepSeek V2 wrote was unnecessarily long and repetitious while the reasoning before generating the code in R1 was also long.

My most significant concern is that both designs of the DeepSeek recognition makes sure recognition approximately 2 decimal places, however if a very large number is gone into (like 0.30000000000000004), using parseFloat does not have specific rounding knowledge. The R1 model likewise utilized JavaScript’s Number conversion without checking for edge case inputs. If bad data comes back from an earlier part of the regular expression or a non-string makes it into that conversion, the code would crash.

It’s odd, since R1 did present an extremely nice list of tests to verify against:

So here, we have a split choice. I’m offering the point to DeepSeek V3 because neither of these problems its code produced would cause the program to break when run by a user and would create the anticipated results. On the other hand, I need to offer a fail to R1 because if something that’s not a string somehow enters the Number function, a crash will ensue.

Which gives DeepSeek V3 2 triumphes of 4, but DeepSeek R1 just one triumph of 4 up until now.

Test 3: Finding an irritating bug

This is a test created when I had an extremely irritating bug that I had trouble locating. Once again, I chose to see if ChatGPT might manage it, which it did.

The challenge is that the answer isn’t apparent. Actually, the difficulty is that there is an obvious response, based upon the error message. But the apparent response is the incorrect response. This not just captured me, however it routinely catches a few of the AIs.

Also: Are ChatGPT Plus or Pro worth it? Here’s how they compare to the complimentary variation

Solving this bug needs comprehending how specific API calls within WordPress work, being able to see beyond the error message to the code itself, and then understanding where to discover the bug.

Both DeepSeek V3 and R1 passed this one with nearly similar responses, bringing us to 3 out of 4 wins for V3 and two out of 4 wins for R1. That currently puts DeepSeek ahead of Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and Meta.

Will DeepSeek score a home run for V3? Let’s discover.

Test 4: Writing a script

And another one bites the dust. This is a challenging test due to the fact that it needs the AI to comprehend the interaction in between three environments: AppleScript, the Chrome item design, and a Mac scripting tool called Keyboard Maestro.

I would have called this an unfair test due to the fact that Keyboard Maestro is not a traditional programming tool. But ChatGPT dealt with the test easily, understanding precisely what part of the problem is dealt with by each tool.

Also: How ChatGPT scanned 170k lines of code in seconds, conserving me hours of work

Unfortunately, neither DeepSeek V3 or R1 had this level of . Neither model understood that it needed to divide the job in between directions to Keyboard Maestro and Chrome. It likewise had fairly weak understanding of AppleScript, writing custom-made routines for AppleScript that are belonging to the language.

Weirdly, the R1 design failed too because it made a lot of inaccurate presumptions. It presumed that a front window constantly exists, which is absolutely not the case. It also made the presumption that the currently front running program would always be Chrome, instead of clearly examining to see if Chrome was running.

This leaves DeepSeek V3 with 3 appropriate tests and one fail and DeepSeek R1 with 2 correct tests and two stops working.

Final ideas

I found that DeepSeek’s persistence on utilizing a public cloud e-mail address like gmail.com (rather than my regular e-mail address with my business domain) was frustrating. It likewise had a variety of responsiveness stops working that made doing these tests take longer than I would have liked.

Also: How to use ChatGPT to write code: What it does well and what it doesn’t

I wasn’t sure I ‘d be able to compose this article due to the fact that, for the majority of the day, I got this mistake when trying to sign up:

DeepSeek’s online services have just recently dealt with massive harmful attacks. To make sure continued service, registration is briefly limited to +86 telephone number. Existing users can visit as typical. Thanks for your understanding and assistance.

Then, I got in and had the ability to run the tests.

DeepSeek seems to be extremely loquacious in regards to the code it generates. The AppleScript code in Test 4 was both incorrect and exceedingly long. The routine expression code in Test 2 was appropriate in V3, however it might have been written in a manner in which made it much more maintainable. It stopped working in R1.

Also: If ChatGPT produces AI-generated code for your app, who does it truly belong to?

I’m certainly amazed that DeepSeek V3 vanquished Gemini, Copilot, and Meta. But it seems at the old GPT-3.5 level, which suggests there’s certainly space for enhancement. I was disappointed with the results for the R1 model. Given the choice, I ‘d still choose ChatGPT as my programs code helper.

That said, for a new tool operating on much lower infrastructure than the other tools, this might be an AI to enjoy.

What do you think? Have you attempted DeepSeek? Are you using any AIs for programs assistance? Let us know in the remarks below.

You can follow my daily task updates on social media. Make certain to sign up for my weekly upgrade newsletter, and follow me on Twitter/X at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/ DavidGewirtz, on Instagram at Instagram.com/ DavidGewirtz, on Bluesky at @DavidGewirtz. com, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/ DavidGewirtzTV.