The actual title is "Why We Do Not Evolve Software? Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms". This is a good example of the kind of editorializing of titles that should not be allowed, IMO.
Very odd that this paper only has 2 citations. Seems like a nice general overview of the topic.
bibliography length is a fetish. I'm writing a paper and I cited Lord Rayleigh for analysis of the airy disk. did I really need to cite him? who really doesn't know that Rayleigh's criterion was devised by Rayleigh? but I did because I'm taking precaution against someone either asking me rederive diffraction through a circular aperture or accusing me of not giving credit where credit is due. it's dumb. some academics are obsessed with attribution (God forbid you're not acknowledged for your incremental genius)
Citations help interested readers find relevant sources to dig deeper about a topic. This is especially useful for survey paper.
Rayleigh is well covered in Wikipedia. Mathematicians don't cite Newton and Leibniz for calculus.