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

DeepSeek blew up into the world’s consciousness this previous weekend. It sticks out for three effective reasons:

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

2. It’s open source.

3. It uses significantly less infrastructure than the big AI tools we have actually been taking a look at.

Also: Apple scientists reveal the secret sauce behind DeepSeek AI

Given the US federal government’s issues over TikTok and possible Chinese government involvement in that code, a brand-new AI emerging from China is bound to create attention. ZDNET’s Radhika Rajkumar did a deep dive into those issues in her post Why China’s DeepSeek might rupture our AI bubble.

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

Choose V3 for jobs needing depth and precision (e.g., fixing advanced math issues, producing complicated code).

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

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

The brief response is this: impressive, but clearly not best. Let’s dig in.

Test 1: Writing a WordPress plugin

This test was really my first test of ChatGPT’s programming prowess, way back in the day. My partner needed a plugin for WordPress that would assist her run an involvement device for her online group.

Also: The very best AI for coding in 2025 (and what not to use)

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

I didn’t really have time to code it for her, so I chose to offer the AI the difficulty on a whim. To my substantial surprise, it worked.

Since then, it’s been my first test for AIs when examining their programming abilities. It needs the AI to know how to establish code for the WordPress structure and follow triggers plainly sufficient to create both the user interface and program logic.

Only about half of the AIs I’ve checked can completely pass this test. Now, nevertheless, we can include one more to the winner’s circle.

DeepSeek V3 developed both the user interface and program logic precisely as specified. As for DeepSeek R1, well that’s a fascinating case. The “reasoning” element of R1 triggered the AI to spit out 4502 words of analysis before sharing the code.

The UI looked various, with much larger 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 written, my code just enabled dollars. So, the test involves giving the AI the routine that I composed and asking it to rewrite it to permit both dollars and cents

Also: My preferred ChatGPT feature just got method more effective

Usually, this results in the AI creating some regular expression recognition code. DeepSeek did generate code that works, although there is room for . The code that DeepSeek V2 wrote was unnecessarily long and repetitious while the reasoning before producing the code in R1 was also really long.

My biggest concern is that both models of the DeepSeek recognition makes sure recognition up to 2 decimal places, however if a huge number is gotten in (like 0.30000000000000004), the use of parseFloat doesn’t have explicit rounding knowledge. The R1 model also utilized JavaScript’s Number conversion without checking for edge case inputs. If bad information 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, because R1 did present a really nice list of tests to confirm versus:

So here, we have a split decision. I’m providing the indicate DeepSeek V3 because neither of these problems its code produced would trigger the program to break when run by a user and would produce the expected results. On the other hand, I need to give a stop working to R1 since if something that’s not a string somehow gets into the Number function, a crash will occur.

And that offers DeepSeek V3 two wins out of 4, however DeepSeek R1 just one triumph of 4 up until now.

Test 3: Finding a frustrating bug

This is a test developed when I had a really frustrating bug that I had difficulty tracking down. Once once again, I chose to see if ChatGPT could manage it, which it did.

The obstacle is that the answer isn’t obvious. Actually, the difficulty is that there is an apparent answer, based upon the mistake message. But the apparent answer is the incorrect answer. This not just captured me, but it frequently 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, having the ability to see beyond the error message to the code itself, and after that knowing where to find the bug.

Both DeepSeek V3 and R1 passed this one with almost similar responses, bringing us to 3 out of 4 wins for V3 and 2 out of four wins for R1. That currently puts DeepSeek ahead of Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and Meta.

Will DeepSeek score a crowning achievement for V3? Let’s discover.

Test 4: Writing a script

And another one bites the dust. This is a tough test because it requires the AI to understand the interplay in between 3 environments: AppleScript, the Chrome things design, and a Mac scripting tool called Keyboard Maestro.

I would have called this an unfair test because Keyboard Maestro is not a traditional shows tool. But ChatGPT managed the test easily, comprehending exactly what part of the issue is managed 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 understanding. Neither design understood that it needed to split the job in between instructions to Keyboard Maestro and Chrome. It also had fairly weak knowledge of AppleScript, composing custom-made routines for AppleScript that are belonging to the language.

Weirdly, the R1 model failed too since it made a bunch of inaccurate presumptions. It assumed that a front window constantly exists, which is certainly not the case. It likewise made the assumption that the currently front running program would constantly be Chrome, rather than clearly inspecting to see if Chrome was running.

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

Final ideas

I found that DeepSeek’s persistence on using a public cloud email address like gmail.com (instead of my typical e-mail address with my business domain) was annoying. It likewise had a number of responsiveness fails that made doing these tests take longer than I would have liked.

Also: How to utilize ChatGPT to compose code: What it does well and what it does not

I wasn’t sure I ‘d have the ability to compose this article since, for the majority of the day, I got this error when attempting to register:

DeepSeek’s online services have actually just recently faced massive destructive attacks. To guarantee ongoing service, registration is briefly limited to +86 telephone number. Existing users can visit as typical. Thanks for your understanding and support.

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

DeepSeek seems to be extremely loquacious in terms of the code it produces. The AppleScript code in Test 4 was both wrong and exceedingly long. The routine expression code in Test 2 was right in V3, however it might have been composed in a method that made it much more maintainable. It failed in R1.

Also: If ChatGPT produces AI-generated code for your app, who does it actually come from?

I’m absolutely impressed that DeepSeek V3 vanquished Gemini, Copilot, and Meta. But it seems at the old GPT-3.5 level, which suggests there’s definitely space for improvement. I was disappointed with the outcomes for the R1 model. Given the option, I ‘d still pick ChatGPT as my programming code assistant.

That stated, for a new tool working on much lower facilities than the other tools, this might be an AI to enjoy.

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

You can follow my day-to-day task updates on social networks. Make certain to sign up for my weekly update 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.