This is sort of a silly thread, but perhaps its not obvious to non-coders.
People will code to the requirements and to their skill.
If you do a 'lazy port' (which everyone will try first, since its _easy and fast_), and its 'good enough' (for the porters requirements, be they his own or public glory or whatever) then he'll stick with it. But if he wants more (better performance, better UI, whatever) and he has the skill, he'll do that.
A lot of Linuxy apps have no UI (basic command line GUI) and other people supply shells say, or the shell is optional, etc. Certainly handhelds generally have very different UI needs than desktops, so the UI usually has to be redone -- you want it to fit
usably onto small screen (regardless of rez, size counts), and also you want 'gamey UI' for the handheld - HUDs and such - that desktops may not care about.
Also, Pandora isn't as beefy as a desktop. Big fat emus that are already inefficient yet awesome (DOSbox, I'm looking at you) will need work anyway.
So anyway..
You can't "criticize" someone for taking the lazy approach. Laziness is a virtue

But you can criticize the end work. If you think something is no good, it needs work. But if a 5 minute port is really good, well, fine

Its usually not that easy either. Its a balance, since a 5min port might be 'good enough' for some, but not others.
--
But with the DNA of this scene, you can bet things will be pretty good. It is a bonus to have the option to take it easy.
Imagine - if you can have a whole
pile of simple lazy ports in the first couple weeks. That is a win. Then, over the next few months, they get optimized and cleaned up. Also a win
jeff
EDIT: To help illustrate Jeff's point, I have gone back over his quick-and-dirty work and "optimized" it for spelling and grammar
-Chip