Actually process-based parallelism is supported in more recent pythons,
   for the reason that using processes passes management largely to the
   OS. It's not the only way to do Parallelism but it's recommended by
   some.
   Thanks for suggesting Ocaml: have seen it recommended a lot lately,
   better check it out.

   On 18 April 2014 18:41:11 GMT+01:00, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net>
   wrote:

OCaml. [1]http://ocaml.org/
     1. OCaml is more obscure than many languages, but it supports
        programming in imperative, object-oriented, and functional
        styles (though it's obviously best suited for a functional
        style). I've seen people write Java in OCaml and produce clean,
        modular code.
     2. OCaml is used in industrial environments (it's gotten pretty
        popular on Wall Street) and in open-source projects; the
        toolchain is mature and the community is vibrant.
     3. OCaml is memory safe, but more importantly, it's type safe, and
        its type system is capable of encoding a great deal of your
        program's correctness. It will take some time to get your
        program to compile, but when it does you have a much stronger
        assurance that your program is correct than you do in C, C++, or

Java.
     4. OCaml compiles to native code; I'm not sure if deterministic
        builds have been done but they should be possible.
     5. (Performance, the hidden elephant in every language discussion
        room) The OCaml team takes security seriously, and OCaml is
        performance-competitive with C. OCaml does tail-call
        elimination, so you can write programs functionally that are
        memory-efficient.
     6. (Weaknesses) OCaml has a global lock due to its garbage
        collection, so parallel programming has to be done with
        processes. This is (IMO) cleaner than in similar situations like
        Python, but is obviously suboptimal.
I'd highly recommend reading through this blog series, chronicling a
developer picking OCaml as the language to rewrite a large Python
open-source project in. It doesn't have the same focus as you, but it
goes over various reasons why
someone might switch to OCaml, and
introduces some OCaml features:
[2]http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/categories/ocaml/
On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 10:26 +0200, Stevens Le Blond wrote:

     Hello,
     We are a team of researchers working on the design and
     implementation of
     a traffic-analysis resistant anonymity network and we would like to
     request your opinion regarding the choice of a programming language
     /
     environment. Here are the criteria:
     1) Familiarity: The language should be familiar or easy to learn for
     most potential contributors, as we hope to build a diverse community
     that builds on and contributes to the code.
     2) Maturity: The language implementation, tool chain and libraries
     should be mature enough to support a production system.
     3) Language security: The language should minimize the risk of
     security
     relevant bugs like buffer overflows.
     4) Security of runtime / tool chain: It should be hard to
     inconspicuously backdoor the tool chain and, if applicable, runtime
     environments.
     To give two concrete examples:
     Using the C language + deterministic builds is an attractive option
     with
     respect to 1), 2) and 4), but doesn’t provide much regarding 3).
     Java does better with respect to 3), however, it trades some of 3)
     and
     4) as compared to C. Specifically, we are concerned that large
     runtimes
     may be difficult to audit. A similar argument may apply to other
     interpreted languages.
     Given these criteria, what language would you choose and for what
     reasons? We would also appreciate feedback regarding our criteria.
     All the best,
     David, Nick, Peter, Stevens, and William

   --
   Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

References

   1. http://ocaml.org/
   2. http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/categories/ocaml