It might not give enough examples to show you how to do something right, but I think it's enough to warn against doing something wrong, namely introducing an in

It might not give enough examples to show you how to do something right, but I think it's enough to warn against doing something wrong, namely introducing an indirection that doesn't provide any of the benefits of abstraction. My colleagues invariably refer to indirections as abstractions, and it's a frustrating sort of name-squatting, because you can't usefully discuss the tradeoffs of abstractions if they're actually talking about indirections. That said, the article does drop the ball by seeming to use the terms interchangeably.