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 sticks out for three powerful factors:

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

2. It’s open source.

3. It uses greatly less facilities than the big AI tools we have actually been looking at.

Also: Apple researchers expose the secret sauce behind DeepSeek AI

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

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

Choose V3 for tasks needing depth and precision (e.g., resolving innovative mathematics issues, creating intricate code).

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

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

The brief answer is this: excellent, 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 prowess, method back in the day. My spouse required a plugin for WordPress that would help her run a participation device for her online group.

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

Her requirements were relatively simple. It needed to take in a list of names, one name per line. It then had to arrange the names, and if there were duplicate 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 challenge on a whim. To my huge surprise, it worked.

Ever since, it’s been my very first test for AIs when assessing their programs skills. It requires the AI to understand how to establish code for the WordPress structure and follow prompts clearly adequate to create both the interface and program reasoning.

Only about half of the AIs I have actually checked can fully pass this test. Now, nevertheless, we can include another to the winner’s circle.

DeepSeek V3 produced both the user interface and program reasoning exactly as specified. As for DeepSeek R1, well that’s an intriguing case. The « thinking » element of R1 triggered the AI to spit out 4502 words of analysis before sharing the code.

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

So far, DeepSeek V3 and R1 both passed among four tests.

Test 2: Rewriting a string function

A user complained that he was unable to get in dollars and cents into a donation entry field. As written, my code just permitted dollars. So, the test includes providing the AI the regular that I wrote and asking it to reword it to enable both dollars and cents

Also: My favorite ChatGPT function just got method more effective

Usually, this results in the AI creating some regular expression validation code. DeepSeek did create 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 greatest issue is that both models of the DeepSeek recognition guarantees recognition approximately 2 decimal locations, but if a huge number is gotten in (like 0.30000000000000004), making use of parseFloat does not have specific rounding understanding. The R1 design also used JavaScript’s Number conversion without inspecting for edge case inputs. If bad information comes back from an earlier part of the routine expression or a non-string makes it into that conversion, the code would crash.

It’s odd, due to the fact that R1 did present a really good list of tests to confirm against:

So here, we have a split decision. I’m offering the indicate DeepSeek V3 because neither of these issues its code produced would trigger the program to break when run by a user and would generate the expected outcomes. On the other hand, I have to give a fail to R1 due to the fact that if something that’s not a string somehow enters into the Number function, a crash will occur.

Which gives DeepSeek V3 two triumphes of 4, but DeepSeek R1 only one win out of four up until now.

Test 3: Finding a bothersome bug

This is a test created when I had a really irritating bug that I had difficulty finding. Once again, I decided to see if ChatGPT might manage it, which it did.

The challenge is that the response isn’t apparent. Actually, the challenge is that there is an apparent response, based on the error message. But the apparent response is the incorrect answer. This not only caught me, however it frequently captures some of the AIs.

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

Solving this bug requires understanding how particular API calls within WordPress work, having the ability to see beyond the mistake message to the code itself, and after that understanding where to discover the bug.

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

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

Test 4: Writing a script

And another one bites the dust. This is a difficult test since it needs the AI to understand the interplay in between three environments: AppleScript, the Chrome item model, and a Mac scripting tool called Keyboard Maestro.

I would have called this an unreasonable test since Keyboard Maestro is not a traditional programming tool. But ChatGPT dealt with the test quickly, comprehending precisely what part of the issue is handled by each tool.

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

Unfortunately, neither DeepSeek V3 or R1 had this level of knowledge. Neither design understood that it needed to split the job between guidelines to Keyboard Maestro and Chrome. It likewise had fairly weak understanding of AppleScript, composing customized routines for AppleScript that are belonging to the language.

Weirdly, the R1 model stopped working also due to the fact that it made a lot of incorrect presumptions. It assumed that a front window always exists, which is definitely not the case. It also made the assumption that the currently front running program would constantly be Chrome, instead of clearly inspecting to see if Chrome was running.

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

Final ideas

I discovered that DeepSeek’s insistence on using a public cloud e-mail address like gmail.com (instead of my normal e-mail address with my corporate domain) was irritating. It also had a number of responsiveness stops working that made doing these tests take longer than I would have liked.

Also: How to use ChatGPT to compose code: What it succeeds and what it doesn’t

I wasn’t sure I ‘d be able to compose this short article because, for the majority of the day, I got this error when trying to sign up:

DeepSeek’s online services have actually recently dealt with large-scale harmful attacks. To ensure continued service, registration is briefly limited to +86 telephone number. Existing users can log in as normal. 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 creates. The AppleScript code in Test 4 was both incorrect and exceedingly long. The regular expression code in Test 2 was correct in V3, but it might have been written in a manner in which made it far more maintainable. It failed in R1.

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

I’m absolutely satisfied that DeepSeek V3 vanquished Gemini, Copilot, and Meta. But it seems at the old GPT-3.5 level, which means there’s certainly space for improvement. I was disappointed with the results for the R1 design. Given the option, I ‘d still select ChatGPT as my shows code helper.

That said, for a brand-new tool running on much lower infrastructure than the other tools, this could be an AI to enjoy.

What do you believe? Have you attempted DeepSeek? Are you utilizing any AIs for programming support? Let us understand in the remarks below.

You can follow my everyday project updates on social networks. Make certain to register for my weekly upgrade newsletter, and follow me on Twitter/X at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/ DavidGewirtz, on at Instagram.com/ DavidGewirtz, on Bluesky at @DavidGewirtz. com, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/ DavidGewirtzTV.