Statically typed and simple generally means it's pretty hard to actually write reusable code and it's unlikely to "support multi-paradigm" very well. That said, "simple like Python" is an interesting phrase...
A simple type system makes it difficult to express useful invariants that are also flexible enough for the code to be reusable. Static typing makes it easier to write reusable code, provided the type language is sufficiently expressive.
"In computer science, an invariant is a condition that can be relied upon to be true during execution of a program, or during some portion of it. It is a logical assertion that is held to always be true during a certain phase of execution. For example, a loop invariant is a condition that is true at the beginning and end of every execution of a loop."
I didn't mean it in any more specialized sense, except that there will always exist some invariants that can't be statically enforced (Halting problem). That said, there are lots of things that types can enforce - that's what types are good for (and they are spectacularly good things).
C is statically typed and (ostensibly) simple, and is the language used to write some of the most reused code there is. Do you mean something different by "reusable" from "easy to reuse?"
C is statically typed, and probably simple if python is... but C is not strongly typed. And in fact, much reuse in C is enabled precisely by subverting the type system (eg. cast to and from a void pointer for a generic structure). And still, in any significant C project there's a lot of code that gets rewritten that could live in a library in a less simple language (say, C++).
I don't know Ada well enough to say. Revisiting, I do think Ada generics are probably powerful enough to allow a large amount of safe reuse. I am most skeptical that it still counts as "simple".