A minor point: I found the references to "Ada 1.0", "Ada 2.0", "Ada 3.0", and "Ada 4.0" distracting. I worked with Ada for a long time, and I've never heard of those terms. The successive language standards are almost universally referred to by the years they were published (1983, 1995, 2005, and 2012).
I agree and think it's slightly major. It's hard enough to get word on this language out. Having people Google for Ada 3.0 or 4.0 to get confusing results might make people say screw it. The author should revise the paper with the proper names for the sake of those people.
