See the answer from this thread
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread164796.html

Modify as appropriate.

... and here is how you would do this with Python:
Just to compare the syntax, here is the same thing in C:

There is "no beauty" in even simple C code! Let's all thank the Python development team for giving us a readable syntax. Come to think of it, they all were very fluent in C since the core of Python is writtten in C.

I guess the true beauty of C is somewhat hidden, it can do low level stuff more readable than assembly language.

Its true ! Thanks Python Dev team. I saw one example from Ene where there was no indentation, I whoop it was horrible!
Anyway it is more readable than assembly but wait a minute snee, Assembly is more readable than 10000100101111, I mean a turbulent of machine code language!

"Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder".
Those that know, find a well written piece of code in C very motivating and easy to work with.
The comparison of languages as it has been described here, only shows the lack of knowledge.

for(i = 0; i < sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int); i++) There's no need to evaluate sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int) every single time in the loop, since it never changes.

I don't agree, because the compiler can see that sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int) never changes, so it certainly generates the code with a constant value. Isn't it a lack of knowledge Aia ? Knowledge, beauty, great philosophical problems to think about !

The compiler doesn't miraculously change that expression into a constant. It evaluates each time through the loop. An unnecessary waste of CPU cycles when making a single call and keeping the value would have been sufficient.

[As a way of clarification]
The comment about sizeof() was not the reference to lack of knowledge, but the comparison of languages base on syntax, which is why I said, "The comparison of languages as it has been described here".

I tried comparing the assembly code produced when you remplace sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int) by the constant 5. The diff between the 2 programs is
So the difference is only one movl instruction.

>So the difference is only one movl instruction.

cmpl $4, -8(%ebp) is not the same that cmpl $4, %eax

jle .L3 in not the same that jbe .L3

movl -8(%ebp), %eax is in a loop by virtue of "Jump if Below or Equal" Having the opportunity to execute many times. So it is not "only one mov1 instruction" executed only once.