The proponents of translanguaging are often not aware of the history of code-switching research and the relevance of this research for a range of the claims they make, for example on the issue of the separability of systems. While it is understandable that new paradigms try to emphasize how different they are from others, we cannot see why and how a new approach is different from previous ones unless a fair presentation is given of the position of others and detailed evidence is provided of the claims that are being made. In this rebuttal I show that the translanguaging literature owes a lot to the literature on code-switching, and that the translanguaging practices as found in the instructions to teachers look very similar to examples of code-switching as found in the extensive academic literature. In addition, many of the recommendations for pedagogical practice are not as novel as the proponents of translanguaging would like us to believe: many teachers when they hear about translanguaging say that they have been doing it for years but haven't had a name for it. It is time for the translanguaging papers to now recognize that the translanguaging agenda developed out of the ideas of other excellent researchers in bilingualism.