fix conclusion

README.md

@@ -261,9 +261,6 @@ I myself was a passionate advocate of Onion Architecture for years. I used it he
 
 Jumping from call to call to read along and figure out what goes wrong and what is missing is a vital requirement to quickly solve problem. With this architecture’s layer uncoupling it requires an exponential factor of extra, often disjointed, traces to get to the point where the failure occurs. `🤯`  
 
-> Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.  
-> Brian Kernighan
-
 This architecture was something that made intuitive sense at first, but every time we tried applying it to projects it made a lot more harm than good. In the end, we gave it all up in favour of the good old dependency inversion principle. **No port/adapter terms to learn, no unnecessary layers of horizontal abstractions, no extraneous cognitive load.**
 
 > Do not add layers of abstractions for the sake of an architecture. Add them whenever you need an extension point that is justified for practical reasons. **[Layers of abstraction aren't free of charge](https://blog.jooq.org/why-you-should-not-implement-layered-architecture), they are to be held in our working memory**.  
@@ -297,6 +294,9 @@ Do you feel it? The above statement is difficult to understand. We have just cre
 
 We have enough complexity in the work that we do already, why add more on top of that? We should reduce any cognitive load above and beyond what is intrinsic to the work we do. Boring and straightforward code is a way to go.
 
+> Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.  
+> Brian Kernighan
+
 **Do not make the lives of future developers harder.**
 
 ---