Probably. When talking about object oriented programs, "abstraction" is oftentimes used as a placeholder for "abstract class" as opposed to a "concrete class". You can see this at play when talking about the SOLID principles and when you get to the "D" part people want to turn every class into an interface because it says you must "depend upon abstractions, not concretions".
I think this is where I’ve been most at odds with common OOP approaches (apart from the common practice of widespread mutability). An interface should be an abstraction defining what a given operation (function, module) needs from input to operate on it and produce output, and nothing more. Mirroring concrete types with an interface isn’t abstraction, it’s just putting an IPrefix on concrete types to check a design pattern box.
That’s not what I took from it, but even if that’s what was meant, I think I’d have the same reaction. In terms of abstraction implementations, a class is just a different expression of the same idea of encapsulation.
I still don’t think I’d react differently. A function is an abstraction layer. Maybe this is just me being unintentionally obtuse because I’ve worked so long in environments where functions or collections/modules of functions are the primary organizing principle, but when I encounter “premature abstraction” arguments I don’t generally understand them to mean “sure take those three repetitions of the same logic and write a function, but think really hard about writing a module/namespace/package/class/etc”. Am I misunderstanding this?
I agree with the sentiment. A pure function with one or two parameters is going to attract a lot less scrutiny than a whole module with multiple classes.