Yay, abstraction! If you develop software for a living, abstraction is one of your best friends. You probably use it routinely without even thinking about it. The compiled or interpreted languages you work in cover up all the nasty assembly underneath. And assembly hides the nasty machine language below. You don't deal with memory addresses, sectors, and cylinders. Instead, you work with data structures, files, and directories.
One of the nifty things about abstraction is that you can keep piling it on. Start with the electronics and begin building logic gates and registers. From there you can make an ALU, a controller, a datapath, etc. Next you'll need an assembler. But structured programming is easier; so, let's get some higher level languages in there. Oh and we should probably throw in an operating system so there's no need to worry about low level I/O, process scheduling, and things like that. Can you remember how many levels back we left the electronics? And I didn't even include many of the lighter layers -- things like protocol stacks, APIs, function calls, and so on.
Abstraction is wonderful. Without all these high level tools that cover over the ugliness beneath, we could never get any real work done with computers. It make technology manageable. It increases productivity by orders of magnitude. It allows less capable people to do productive work.
With abstraction, less is more. A simple, compact interface is ideal. You want to know as little as possible about the details. You want all that stuff packaged up into one neat, simple function call. That function is your atom. It's your new lowest level.
Unfortunately, sometimes it's really hard to know when to use abstraction. Successful abstractions make it seem obvious when you should abstract. But it's really not. Every program you write, even a small one, will use abstraction. At all times when you're programming, you need to be thinking about whether you want a new class, a new function, a data structure, or a module. Of course you could just throw everything into one module, one class, and one function, but that would just be awful. That's not why they're there.
I want to discuss the way sockets work with TCP. Typically ASCII messages are framed using two pairs of carriage returns and line feeds as a terminator. It doesn't have to be this way, but the application protocol has to have some way of separating messages since TCP does not respect message boundaries. It sees everything you read and write in the buffer as one long stream of characters. It's your job to parse messages.
The problem with this is that you have no way of knowing how much data to read. The sockets interface doesn't allow you to unget characters or to peek at the underlying buffer (as far as I know). You could, of course, go into a loop and just read one character at a time, and parse the message as you go along. This would have a lot of overhead and be messy.
Another option is to add a thin layer of abstraction. You could write a function that handles all the ickiness. It doesn't necessarily have to read one character at a time. Instead, it might just keep track of complete and partial messages using indicies or special data structures. How it's implemented isn't too important. But you do have to realize that it's going to require another buffer. At the higher level, all you need to do is call this function (say get_msg). All of the ugliness is pushed beneath. You could even completely rewrite the underlying implementation so it's not even using sockets if you want without needing to change the rest of your code. It could even change to UDP or files or standard input. By working at the higher level, you can completely forget about TCP, sockets, framing, the application protocol, state machines, and so on.
Or can you? First there is the extra overhead of the additional buffer and function calls. You are now copying data from one buffer into another and then probably again for the higher level application. In reality there may be even more copies at both the higher and lower levels. For a little extra power, you have possibly accepted a reasonable amount of additional overhead. There is also the failure issue. There may be quite a number of things that can go wrong with the code in get_msg. It may have a memory allocation error. The socket might disconnect unexpectedly. You have to handle those errors. Often this can't be done at that level; so you have to pass them up to the higher level. This usually involves lots of ugly if statements to handle all possible errors. So, you haven't left behind as much of the ugliness as you thought you did. It's creeping upwards.
So when is it worth it to add the additional abstraction? You have to make that decision based off of how much work you want to do, how much overhead is acceptable, how simple and readable you want your high level code to be, how difficult it is to write the low level code, and other factors. If you're writing very simple socket code for a simple application protocol, it probably isn't worth it. For code much more complicated, it is probably worth it to insert the extra layer. Sometimes you'll realize the code has become more complicated. That's when it's time to go back and clean things up. I.e., insert new layers. A good indication that you need more abstraction is when code becomes very difficult to understand and think about because of too many variables and complex logic. Usually separating the code into two or more conceptual levels fixes the problem.
In certain situations you want to take the opposite approach. Inserting layers makes the code simpler and easier to grasp, but it makes your code less efficient. In the extreme, imagine throwing away all the abstraction and implementing your program on the bare hardware. It would take forever (if even possible), but I guarantee it will put any modern application running on a modern OS to shame.
The other side of the coin is de-abstraction. Sometimes, you might want to make a program faster by throwing away layers. Usually, this is a bad idea, but there are times when you'll find it might make sense. If you have a carefully tested system that's known to be very stable and bug free AND you have written a comprehensive set of unit tests, this is a case where de-abstraction could be useful IF it's necessary. I remember being told many years ago that the latest version of IE was much faster because some of the modules were re-implemented in assembly. This is de-abstraction.
Each level of abstraction adds overhead. Your particular use may not even exercise most of the code in the APIs you use. But it will still have to do all the setup work and allocate data structures. It will still have to run the generalized code, even though you only wanted a very specific case. By de-abstracting, you can save an enormous amount of cpu cycles and space in some cases.
Before you move in the reverse direction, be sure it makes sense to do so. And you need to be prepared for changes and have tests set up so you can verify the new system is functionally equivalent to the old one.