And you can implement C as a set of assembler macros and a preprocessor step (which can be part of any C compiler). That does NOT make C and assembly the same l

And you can implement C as a set of assembler macros and a preprocessor step (which can be part of any C compiler). That does NOT make C and assembly the same language. The same is true for large C++ codebases. Nobody claims they're valid C, even though they're one preprocessing step away from being one. Specifically C is "smaller". Everything in C can be expressed in assembly, but not every piece of assembly code has a matching C code. One hopes that it's mostly the more insane parts of assembly code that can't be translated. Nobody will argue that C and "text" assembly are the same language. In the same way, I argue that javascript and closure are very, very different. Generally, assuming google actually demands closure apps compile with the toolchain (I'd be astonished if they didn't), these languages are not the same, despite one being valid in the other. Javascript further clouds this issue by allowing preprocessing steps in the language itself. If you don't take that into account, you could say python is valid javascript. That's not a reasonable claim.