Both incandescent and fluorescent are quite old technologies, and have been bettered in terms of efficiency and lifecycle impact.
Furthermore, compact fluorescents aren't the only type of fluorescents. So although the compact fluorescents are superior to incandescents anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply (so almost all the world, in 2013, bar Norway, Iceland and Bhutan), they're not in and of themselves the best in class. And remember that one of the highest resource inputs is of the glass, so an incandescent that lasts only 1000 hours is worse in many ways than a long-life bulb.
Fluorescents with a separable electronic ballast are superior to those compact fluorescents with built-in ballasts.
And there are plenty of LED lamps on the market now that give similar lumens per watt than fluorescents, and with much longer life (5-8 times as long).
For brighter lights, there are SONs with electronic ballasts, that offer very high lumens per watt too. And there are an increasing number of OLED lamps coming out too.
Incandescents are, in almost every case, a terrible option. For anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply, lamp lifetime, and lumens per watt, are your best guide as to first-order environmental impact: higher is better, for the environment.
Example lumens per watt: (note the overlaps between the ranges)
Fluorescent (compact or otherwise): 40-100
SON (high-pressure sodium): 80-150
Theoretical maximum (pure green light): 683