Don't try to twist words! Just admit you can't do what others can. No shame in that but just quit pretending that PIC32 is so great and ARM is an impossible hurdle for everyone to overcome.
If we're not twisting words, you wrote, "You are not making a strong case for your abilities to figure something out.
There are so many tutorials out there to get an ARM microcontroller going..."
An inference that I am inept at figuring things out, "just because other have" but specifically written in a way that conveys specific inferiority. In all of the feigned wisdom, it brilliantly omits the possibility that one made the actual effort and quite simply what was found did not work. Again, no twisting of words here. You then follow this up with a statement essentially stating that "there are so many tutorials to get it going," that is must mean they're all good and they all work, in the same sense that everything we read on the internet is true. Thus, my comments which mocked the fact that not everything we read on the internet is actually true.
If your case were as trivial and as strong as you suggest, you would point to a single site or so with a complete tutorial that gets something working from start to finish. Just as the other fellow above goes on about it being so easy a caveman could do it, the best way to actually show the kind of highbrow competence you possess is to show, and not tell. Then, if I follow the motions exactly and it works, then I am most certainly the idiot eh? But of course, it's safer to just posture than to actually put up anything that might not actually be right.
About a decade ago I used GCC + Eclipse CDT to get my own code running on NXP and ST ARM devices. NXP (still called Philips back then) had a serial bootloader tool but for ST I used OpenOCD (and a parallel port JTAG dongle on veroboard). Until then I used batch files and makefiles to compile code so everything was new for me. I managed just fine by combining various tutorials and checking the output (mapfile and hex file). I only needed a couple of days of reading and doing things step by step to get my own standard platform ported and programs to run. I even compiled an ARM version of the MSP430 GCC C library because of it's small size.
I still use batch files and make files for a number of things, esp on RPi GCC dev (which, yes, uses an ARM). But this isn't the low-level guts kind of coding I'd like to be using an ARM for (DSP work). The tutorials for building GCC for ARM that I found only dealt with the ST Micro line (and thus the choice in buying that discovery board), and while I did turn out some basic code from what I could extrapolate from the STM's datasheet, I had no results of any kind from the thing. There was no launch point to prove the toolchain worked. Searching for this information was a scattered mess (incomplete code examples, stuff that wouldn't compile correctly, or code for a different ARM which I didn't have the CMSIS files required to map things). It might be more of an indictment against the state of online tutorial help than anything, when I think about it.
Please show me the idiot I am, by expressing ...
I did it earlier but I am happy to give it more meat:
1) download a copy of CoIDE 1.x;
2) install it on your computer;
3) run it;
4) select your chip and functionalities you desire in your project;
You are done.
Okay. I'll do precisely this tonight. For fun, I will _video_ the result, but I predict there will be a problem in doing so: that particular procedure doesn't actually output anything. The caveman scenario he gets a printable piece of paper stating he has insurance once he buys it. In your summary, all i have is software on my PC, and as we both know that isn't useful for the micro.
That's simply because the PIC32 has simple peripherals.
And that isn't actually a refutation of anything, let alone the post I made which got this derail going.
What I find interesting is that people keep complaining about expensive and fancy tools used to program ARM chips. That's like a Ford buyer complaining constantly about expensive and fancy Ferraris. What good does it do?
Not quite, but you're close: It's like a club of Ferrari drivers looking down and asking why people who want to buy a Ford or Toyota even bother; they should just buy a Ferrari. The problem that the econobox driver is attempting to solve is not necessarily the same one the Ferrari driver is solving even though they are both traveling on the road.
You are far better focusing on tools that fit your needs, not about the fact that other people are driving around in their fancy "Ferraris". Be happy with your Ford.
You mean
exactly like I have been saying since the first post on why I chose the PIC32MZ? Funny that! But then don't come prancing around that your Ferrari is "the people's car" or that it's actually a platform with a reasonable barrier to entry. You've agreed with me on several points now that your "ferrari" has not only high maintenance but high cost of entry, which for some people makes it unobtainable in spite of all your ravings that it doesn't. Pick one direction already.